What can women in classical sociology teach us about contemporary sociology of religion?

Gender and sexuality

Martineau and Wells were early champions for women’s rights. They addressed several topics that feminism later brought up, such as resistance to dominance, equal rights, economic equality, and inclusion. Both also saw education as a tool for equality.

Martineau was part of the British suffragette movement and pointed to the lack of citizen rights for women in the United States. In fact, one chapter in her book is entitled, ‘Political non-existence of women’ (Martineau, 1837: 199–207). Here, she argues that the principle of equal rights includes ‘both halves of the human race’, a principle that cannot be avoided. The political exclusion of women also results in their exclusion from property. In addition to discussing equal political and economic rights, Martineau describes the social denigration of women because they are not treated as equals (Martineau, 1837: 336).

Wells did not write as much on gender equality as did Martineau, but for her, the struggle for women’s rights was part of the struggle for African American rights. Wells was more of an activist than Martineau. When she moved to Chicago in the early 1890s, she wrote for the largest African American newspaper there, the Chicago Conservator, of which she later took control and became the editor. She also formed a large organization for Black women, of which she was the president. In 1913, she established the first Black women’s suffrage organization.

Since the 1970s and 1980s, a great variety of studies has been conducted in the sociology of religion on gender differences in religion, spirituality, and non-religion. In the following, I will use the terms women and men, although it is important to be aware that there are far more gender and sexual categories than these two. I talk of women as those of us who identify as women and men as those of us who identify as men.

Many studies in the sociology of religion have examined faith, experiences, and gender-linked body practices. For example, there are empirical studies of women in organized religion, in historic organizations and movements, in traditional and conservative religious communities, and in religious leadership. Studies have also focused on gendered religious movements, like the women’s spirituality movement, healing, and male spirituality movements, like the Promise Keepers. Some sociologists of religion have also examined the implications that research in the sociology of religion has had for theory, as for example, secularization theory (Aune et al., 2008). Altogether, a relatively large body of research has been done on gender and religion, many with links to theory. Nevertheless, the question is if this interest has declined in the sociology of religion since the 1990s and if gender in 2024 is more taken for granted as an issue rather than being a topic that is empirically studied (for a brief overview, see Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 194–201).

Martineau and Wells did not discuss sexual diversity, but as gender and sexuality are different, but closely related, I will include it here. Sexual orientation includes sexual identity, romantic attractions, and sexual practices. Sexual diversity is not new, but found in different cultures and various historical periods, even though LGBTIQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex, Queer, plus other orientations) is a relatively new term. Sexual identity is often understood based on hierarchic classifications in society, and heteronormative identities are often placed above LGBTIQ+ identities many places. In fact, despite changes in gender practices, there is a widespread heteronormativity in many contemporary countries across the world. This means that there is an institutionalization of heterosexuality as the preferred and esteemed standard for how sexuality and gender should be practiced and organized in society (Neitz, 2000: 375). Although sexuality has to do with intimate life, it is never private, because it is linked to society’s organization of sexual relationships and reproduction. Sexuality is regulated by states and governments, which is seen in marriage laws, biotechnology laws, parental leave arrangements, and child support (Page, 2020: 745–746). Religious institutions and leaders also tend to regulate sexuality, and religious directions and proscriptions are often directed toward women and people who identify as LGBTIQ+.

The study of sexuality in the sociology of religion is a growing field (see Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 204–209). Empirical studies show that religious institutions uphold heteronormative norms in various ways, yet also change. In many religious traditions, persons who identify within LGBTIQ+ are either not recognized or condemned. Several conservative traditions and institutions see LGBTIQ+ orientations, identification, and especially practices, as sinful. In the 1980s, many American Christian Right activists favored the criminalization of homosexuality. Nevertheless, empirical research shows that Evangelical discourse in the United States has changed during the last decades. There has been a change toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage in Evangelical congregations in parallel with the general population. As a result, a growing number of American Evangelical leaders have become more hesitant toward banning such marriages (Bean and Martinez, 2014). Despite these changes, a study of American conservative Christian leaders during 2008–2021 concluded that they attempt to invalidate LGBTIQ+ Christian identities by arguing against the idea of intersectionality. These leaders claim that a Christian identity should have primacy by informing and regulating other identities, and that the notion that people might have multiple and complex identities undermines this primacy (Barrett-Fox and Yip, 2021).

In the sociology of religion, controversies over religion and sexuality are often described according to the binary of conservative versus liberal. In their study of African church leaders, Andrew McKinnon and Christopher Brittain (2021) find that the disagreement on sexuality in the Anglican Church is not simply a conflict between liberal versus conservative, or between the global South versus the global North. Instead, the conflict has to do with colonialism and economic inequalities in a postcolonial global context. The African church leaders who participated in this study argue, for example, that the issue is not so much disagreement over sexuality as it is a question of the importance of this issue in relation to other vital issues, like poverty, education, and HIV/AIDS.

This brings us to another theme, namely how LGBTIQ+ individuals navigate their religious identities. Various studies show that there are different strategies of identity negotiations. I will mention one study here, which explored how Chinese and Taiwanese persons, who identified as gays and lesbians, and their parents navigated hegemonic Confucian beliefs (Lazzara, 2021). The participants in this study are challenged by the conflict between their gender orientations, relations, and practices, and their ethnic Chinese identity. Many of the Chinese LGBTIQ+ participants report that they feel obliged to get married and have a child, although this is less the case for the Taiwanese participants. The participants experience a decreasing emphasis on marriage, especially in Taiwan. The reason is that their parents increasingly value close relationships with their offspring, and they think it is their parental duty to support their children. The intersection of religion, gender, and sexuality is continuing to change across the world and more research in the sociology of religion is needed in this field.

Race and ethnicity

Another key theme in the work of Martineau and Wells is race, racial relations, as well as race and religion. Martineau criticizes slavery as an institution and the pervasive racism toward African Americans in the North. She describes the denial of their citizenship, as well as the prejudices, the unfair treatment, and the segregation in churches, restaurants, and public places (Martineau, 1837: 193–199, 106–136). Martineau’s concern is ‘a prevalent unconsciousness of the existing wrong’ (1837: 332, 336), which she thinks inform Christian theology in the South, destroy morality, leads to lack of respect for individual rights, and limits liberty for all. Since the press in the South avoids issues related to slavery and covers up the ills of society, this harms democracy, because freedom of the press is the basis of democracy in the United States, she says.

A fundamental theme in Wells’ work on lynching is racism. In her autobiography, she revealed that she thought that lynching was a retaliation for rape of white women, but the Memphis lynching ‘opened my eyes to what lynching really was. An excuse to get rid of Negroes who were acquiring wealth and property’ (Wells, 1970: 64). Through her systematic study of lynch records published in local newspapers, she discovers that rape is often used to hide consensual interracial relationships of Black men and white women to protect the reputation of the women. Her study shows how the myth of rape is used as a weapon of racism and she also criticizes the patriarchal idea that white women are the possession of white men (Hamington, 2005: 168).

In her work, Wells points to the different role religion might have in producing and reproducing racism. On the one hand, she finds that some Christian ministers in the North speak out against lynching. On the other hand, she also finds that some bishops in the North are reluctant to do so (Wells-Barnett, 2014b [1895]: 245, 282). She claims that ‘“the color line” was as distinctly drawn as ever’ (Wells, 1970: 108) in the religious sphere in the South, and she criticizes the role that the white churches play in the segregation and legitimation of lynching. Many churches were simply indifferent to the issue of lynching and ‘pulpit, press and moral agencies in the main were silent’ (Wells-Barnett, 2014b [1895]: 291). She criticized the Christian and moral leaders who remained silent on these issues, as for example, the revivalist leader Rev. D. L. Moody (1837–1899) and Francis Willard (1839–1898), the president of the National Women’s Christian Temperance Union. For Wells, religion was both a vehicle in the struggle for justice and part of the oppression of people of color.

Current sociologists of religion tend to ignore and undertheorize race and ethnicity, in particular race (Furseth and Repstad, 2022: 244, 2023: 181). In 2006, sociologist Matthew Wood (2006) called for ‘Breaching Bleaching: Integrating Studies of “Race” and Ethnicity with the Sociology of Religion’. He claims that race and ethnicity are largely ignored in both theories and studies of religion. As a result, dominant theories in the sociology of religion are primarily relevant for the white majority, and white religion and religious development are constructed as dominant. In the sociology of religion, ethnicity has often been included in studies of so-called ‘immigrant religions’, while race has often been omitted (Ebaugh and Chafetz, 2000; Foley and Hoge, 2007; Warner and Wittner, 1998). Many of these studies fail to consider the various ways in which racial ideologies and structures affect religious communities and their members.

An exception is found in the long tradition of research on the African American churches. Du Bois (2003 [1903]) conducted the first sociological study of African American churches in 1903, where he addressed issues like slavery and racism. In the 1980s, Aldon Morris (1984) examined the importance of the Black churches in the Civil Rights Movement. More recent work is conducted by Cheryl Townsend Gilkes (2001, 2011), among others, who has studied the role of Black women in church and community. Gilkes draws on sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (1990) and focuses on the intersectionality between gender, race, and class. It is promising to see that research on race and religion is growing. These studies have mostly been conducted in the United States, even though this approach is also seen in other countries (Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 183–186).

In fact, there is a growing amount of research on the racialization of various ethnic and religious minorities in Europe and the United States. One example is found in Jane Naomi Iwamura and Spickard’s (2003) book on Asian and Pacific America that addresses race and racialization. Another example is the many studies of how islamophobia is linked to processes of racialization of Muslims. In an overview, Steve Garner and Saher Selod (2015) found that the racialization processes of Muslims intersected with class and gender in several empirical case studies in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Furthermore, Juliette Galonnier (2015) found that Muslim converts were racialized in both France and the United States, but due to the different historical contrasted understandings of race and religion, the racialization of Islam was given different meanings in the two contexts.

Some research deals with racial and religious self-identification. A study from the United States examines the role of gender, class, and religion in racial labeling decisions among biracial Americans (Davenport, 2016). One finding is that gender is significant in the sense that biracial women are more likely than biracial men to identify as multiracial, and that affluence ‘whitens’ self-identification. The fact that money ‘whitens’ racial identification is also found in a study from Brazil, where highly educated interracial couples more often classify their children as white than do less-educated interracial couples (Schwartzman, 2007). The American study also finds that religion is important in the construction of race, as biracial people who belong to a religion associated with racial minorities tend to self-identity as a minority (Davenport, 2016: 58–59, 76). Some of the reasons for this pattern are that religious institutions in the United States are often segregated by race, and that religion fosters cultural solidarity in oppressed minority groups.

Research on race and religion has also spurred debates on which sociological theories that should be used to study these issues. One example is the debate on Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith’s (2000) study of the role of religion in racial attitudes and practices. Although this is a debate that focuses on one study from the United States, it is of interest because it raises more principled theoretical questions. Emerson and Smith find that white, conservative Protestants in the United States are more likely to hold individualistic explanations for the socioeconomic gap between Black and white people than other Americans. They explain this finding by pointing to the importance of the subcultural ‘tool kit’ of white, conservative Protestants, where religion plays a key part in constructing individual causes of racial inequality. Therefore, conservative Protestants tend to oppose government policies and programs to create racial equality (Emerson and Smith, 2000). One strand of critique of this study points out that only white Americans are included in the sample. Another study examines, therefore, the view on racial equality among mainline Protestants, Black Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (Hinojosa and Park, 2004). Hinojosa and Park find that religion does affect beliefs about inequality. Evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, and Catholics are rather individualistic in their understanding of racial inequality and tend to deny structural explanations, in contrast to African Americans, who harbor a more structural understanding, independent of their religious affiliation. They conclude that religious toolkit is insufficient as an explanation of these findings, and that political orientation and racial experience must be included as explanatory factors (Hinojosa and Park, 2004: 235–236).

Emerson and Smith (2000) were also criticized for failing to recognize how racial attitudes and practices intersect with racism, structural inequalities, gender, and the growth of the political right in the United States. Antony W. Alumkal (2004) demonstrates how racial ideologies in American religious communities are linked to racial projects in other parts of society. While the early racial reconciliation advocated in the 1960s combined individual efforts with the call for changing unjust structures of society, racial reconciliation turned into a conservative racial project in the 1990s. Racism was defined as a spiritual problem, which gave white Christians reasons to reject affirmative action, welfare, and other governmental solutions. Alumkal concludes that by asserting that ‘Christian identity transcends race’ in Evangelical Christianity, it is possible to retain ‘the fruits of white privilege’ (2004: 205).

Other scholars draw on critical race theory and whiteness studies in their critique of Emerson and Smith (Tranby and Hartmann, 2008). Critical race theory claims that racism is widespread, that dominant white groups continue to have privileges that people of color lack, and it questions the idea that race relations in the United States go in a more progressive direction. Whiteness studies focus on whites as a racial group and attempt to detect the structures that produce white privilege and the different ways in which whites construct a ‘white racial frame’ to legitimize and reinforce the racial hierarchy (Feagin and Elias, 2013: 937–941). Tranby and Hartmann re-analyze the quotations presented in Emerson and Smith’s book and conclude that the respondents engage in group-based negative stereotyping of African Americans and blame African Americans as a group for their disadvantage. They conclude that Emerson and Smith rely too heavily on cultural explanations for economic inequality, ‘downplay the existence of such group-based and racist responses’, and ignore how the cultural and the structural intersected to justify the structural dominance of whiteness (Tranby and Hartmann, 2008: 346). Rather than interpreting these ideas as cultural toolkits, Tranby and Hartman see them as part of a broader racial-cultural schema that racialize the causes of economic inequalities.

Social class and inequality

In her empirical study of American society, Martineau introduces the method of studying the distinction between rhetoric and reality (Hill, 1991: 292). She uses this method to study power, conflict, and control in politics, the economy, the culture, and society. Martineau finds that despite social and political equality as an ideal, hierarchy, and social class cleavage are developed in the new ‘nation of equals’. In particular, she finds a ‘great gulf’ between the two classes, ‘the servile and imperious’ (Martineau, 1837: 102). The economic morals justify these class differences, and as noted earlier, churches often justify social inequality and slavery, in particular, the churches in the South (Martineau, 1837: 106–136). In her sociology of religion, Martineau clearly links religion to social class. She argues that some forms of religion justify ‘might’ over ‘right’, and in societies where these forms of religion dominate, the poorer classes will suffer (Martineau, 1838: 72). Her conclusion is that there are wide chasms between the democratic values of justice, equality, and liberty that Americans claims and the institutional economic patterns she observes.

We have seen that Wells developed a social theory through the lens of race relations, and she produced a theory of the intersection of race, class, and gender. Wells had a wider view of domination than Marx with a stronger emphasis on ideas. She sees domination as a matrix of oppression and privileges that are the result of both history, material resources, ideology, and practices (Lengermann and Niebrugge, 2007 [1998]: 161–176). Wells is also an interpretive sociologist, who analyzes the appearance of socially constructed typification in the media. She highlights the different ways in which power, domination, and subordination are present in the construction of symbolic meanings. Her concern is not just the practice of lynching, but the symbolic framing of African Americans as dangerous rapists and a threat to society, which is often propagated by the lynchers, the media, moral leaders, and religious leaders. These myths are used to attack African Americans who are economically and socially upwardly mobile (Wells-Barnett, 2014b [1895]: 225; 2014c [1901]: 409, 413). Especially the white churches in the South use religion to draw ‘the color line’ (Wells, 1970: 97, 108).

Several other classical sociologists have also linked social inequality and religion, most notably, Marx and Weber. Marx (1955 [1844]) looked at religion as a protest against oppression, which pacified the working class and legitimated social class differences and structures. Weber also argued that social class influenced the style and content of religion. For example, he argued that artisans and urban citizens were used to entering negotiations and contracts, and these conditions resulted in ideals of strict duty and the need for salvation in times of failure (Weber, 1964 [1922]: 80–117).

After the classics, studies of social class and religion were primarily continued in the United States. In The Social Sources of Denominationalism from 1929, H. Richard Niebuhr (2004 [1929]) attempted to show how denominations were affected by social class in combination with race. Furthermore, Lloyd Warner (1974 [1942]) pointed to links between social class and religion in his community studies, and so did Liston Pope (1965 [1942]) in his study Millhands and Preachers. Pierre Bourdieu is, perhaps, the most influential modern sociologist who addresses the links between social class and religion (see Furseth and Repstad, 2022: 144–146). In many ways, his view on religion and social class are inspired by Weber. This is clearly seen in Distinction, where Bourdieu (1986 [1979: 111) outlines how the content of religious views in particular social classes are affected by their position in the social structure. This is also evident when he claims that the cultural elite developed ‘a purified and spiritualized religion’ and the cultural poor had ‘a ritualistic religion’ (Bourdieu, 1990 [1982–1987]: 150).

Some years ago, Véronique Altglas and Matthew Wood (2018) edited a book with the title, Bringing Back the Social into the Sociology of Religion, where they called for bringing back typical social factors into studies of religion instead of treating religion as if it is a freefloating ‘thing’ operating on its own. Despite this call, social class continues to be relatively absent in the sociology of religion. In the second edition of An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion, Pål Repstad offers a brief review of recent handbooks and encyclopedias and concludes that there are few references to studies on religion and social class and social inequality (Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 227).

Despite this discouraging conclusion, Repstad notes that there are some empirical studies of social class and religion, and that many are still conducted in the United States (Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 224–225). For example, one study concludes that sectarian cultural orientations in the United States re-create class positions by discouraging secular education and transmitting traditional ideas of family formation and sexuality (Fitzgerald and Glass, 2014). Another study draws on Pierre Bourdieu and examines aesthetics, language, and physical expressions in religious communities (Nelson, 2008).

Repstad attempts to explain why so little attention is given to religion and social class and social inequality in the sociology of religion. One reason might be the strong focus in the sociology of religion on individualization, individual agency, and meaning making, ‘sometimes with structural blindness as a result’, he says (Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 228). Another reason might be the emphasis on ‘culturalization’, where religion and culture become the main explanatory factors, which makes social and economic factors invisible. Repstad also mentions the dominance of an idealist tradition in the subdisciplines that study religion. In many places, the sociology of religion has been influenced by theologians and religious studies scholars, who tend to emphasize ideas rather than social and economic factors. Repstad concludes that there is little interest in social class and social inequality in the current sociology of religion compared to contemporary general sociology. This is surprising, given the growing social inequality in many countries across the world. This also represents a striking contrast to the interest in religion as a social factor in early sociology. Repstad concludes that there is a need for more studies about religion and social inequality, preferably as part of studies in intersectionality.

Democracy

I argued in the beginning of this article that Harriet Martineau and Ida B. Wells introduced themes in sociology and the sociology of religion that many classical sociologists ignored, except Du Bois, themes that are of crucial importance today. In fact, several classical sociologists were primarily concerned with the transition from rural, agrarian societies to modern, industrialized societies, which led them to develop theories of modernization, urbanization, anomie, social solidarity, secularization, individualization, and so forth. Many of these developments are still relevant, but in some cases, classical sociologists seem somewhat outdated. In contrast, a main issue in the works of Martineau, Wells, and I will also include Du Bois, is the actual realization of the ideals of democracy. This is a crucial issue in many parts of the world today. Their argument is that religion plays a role in the facilitation or repression of democracy.

After the American Revolution in 1776, Martineau wanted to study the actual consequences of a constitutional democracy. Her work came 2 years after Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1969 [1835]) Democracy in America. Although both went to the United States and analyzed some of the same topics, her work is far less known than his. This is most likely due to the fact that Martineau did not have an official academic position, which Tocqueville did. Yet, it is ironic, because she stayed longer in the United States, traveled further, and interviewed a much broader range of people than he did. While she spoke the language, Tocqueville spoke relatively poor English and interviewed only a segment of the population, primarily men of wealth and importance in government and politics.

In Society in America, Martineau claims that many Europeans simply assume that Americans are active political citizens. This is one area where Tocqueville and Martineau disagree. Tocqueville argues that American democracy is sustained because a large part of the population participates in politics and voluntary associations. In contrast, Martineau concludes that there is a widespread political indifference and apathy among white Americans, and she devotes a separate section to ‘Apathy in Citizenship’ (1837: 154–162). She attempts to examine the sources of political apathy. One main source is conformism or the concern for the opinion of others (Lipset, 1981 [1962]: 22). Other sources are inequality before the law, and work to undermine free speech by arranging boycotts, excluding political opponents and negative press. People who speak up against slavery are accused of things they did not do and are refused places to arrange meetings. She also finds that freedom of religion is not practiced due to the oppression by Christians of other faiths, conflicts between different Christian denominations, and the defense of slavery and racism in the South by both clergy and church members. Although Martineau is enthusiastic about the ideals of democracy, she is disillusioned about how these ideals are being practiced. Yet, Martineau attempts to reflect on how different forms of religion promote, produce, and legitimate not just the formation of a democratic society, but the development of democratic institutions and the practice of democracy in everyday life. She claims that a democratic government is only possible when there is religious freedom and a dominant moderate religion. The reason is that a moderate religion will emphasize the idea of human equality, an idea she thinks is fundamental in the Christian religion (Martineau, 1837: 224–225).

Wells agrees with Martineau that democracy cannot work as long as non-whites and women are excluded from the polity. Although African Americans in the South were granted rights after slavery was abolished in 1865, these rights were undermined by segregation (Wells-Barnett, 2014a [1892]: 69). According to Wells, these developments do not just pose a threat to the lives of African Americans, but they also pose a threat to the foundations of democracy. They are a threat to the principles of equal and exact justice to all and represent ‘a growing disregard for human life’ (Wells-Barnett, 2014a [1892]: 76). The result is a brutalization of society, lawlessness, and the undermining of the justice system in such a way that ‘the very foundation of government, law and order, are imperiled’ (Wells-Barnett, 2014a [1892]: 76). For Wells, the Christian churches that legitimate and are silent on the issue of racism undermine democracy, while the churches that fight for equal rights help to build a sound foundation for democracy. With Martineau and Wells, democracy appears as a central theme in classical sociology. For both, democracy is an ideal that, if realized, will develop a society characterized by equal and peaceful coexistence, and both think that different forms of religion help to either facilitate or undermine democracy.

In current sociology of religion, many studies have been conducted on politics and religion, religion and the law, and religion and human rights. Much research addresses how governments vary when it comes to religious preferences, human rights, accommodation, and discrimination of religious minorities. There are also studies of how religious institutions and groups use human rights argumentation to oppress other groups in society (for an overview, see Furseth and Repstad, 2023: 297–303). This research is, of course, linked to the issue of democracy, but this link is often not made explicit. It is as if political scientists have gained monopoly on studies on democracy. In fact, there is little research in the sociology of religion of how different forms of religion either facilitate or hinder the development of sound democracies, and this article can be seen as a call for more research on this topic. The lesson from Martineau and Wells is that there is a need for more sociological research on how religion is intersected with social class, gender, sexuality, and race – and how these intersections are linked to the realization of democratic societies. For Martineau and Wells, it was crucial that all groups had to be incorporated into the polity, and religion played a role in this inclusion, and thereby, in the process of making democracy work.