Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological
Analysis.
http://www.jstor.org
SociologicalAnalysis 1989, 50:2 129-146
129
130 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
has claimed "existed from the moment the winter 1967 issue of Daedaluswas printed"
and subsequently "took on a life of its own"; and (3) ACR as academic discussion -
what the journals and books said about ACR after 1967.
A BIBLIOGRAPHICREVIEWOF AMERICAN
CIVILRELIGIONIN FOUR PHASES
Robert Bellah first wrote about ACR in 1965 and presented his ideas at a con-
ference on American religion in May, 1966 (Bellah, 1976e:72; 1970:168).1The year
following its appearance in Daedalus(1967), Bellah's article was reprinted, along with
"commentaries"by Brogan, Pfeffer, Whitney, and Hammond (Cutler, 1968:365-88).
These helped formulate the ground rules of early ACR discourse. Bellah noted an
immediate difficulty in his "response"to those commentaries. "It is clear that which
I mean by 'civil religion in America' is not exactly what most of the commentators
mean, nor do they agree one with another. The notion needs further clarification"
(1968:388). Later, he added that he had had to "defend [himself] against the accusa-
tion of supporting an idolatrous worship of the American nation" (1970:168).
What Bellah had proposed was the existence of an "elaborate and well-
institutionalized civil religion in America" (1967:11), such as that articulated in John
Kennedy's and Lyndon Johnson's inaugural addresses. Those speeches alluded to "a
collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things and institu-
tionalized in a collectivity" that serves Americans "as a genuine vehicle of national
religiousself-understanding," enhancing a "genuineapprehensionof universaland trans-
cendent religious reality ... as revealed through the experience of the American peo-
ple" (Bellah, 1967:8, 12). Bellah saw a present time of trial for ACR issuing from
1One reviewer anonymously provided an anecdote which identifies a serendipityin Bellah's participation
in the whole of the ACR controversy: "Although Bellah had a longstanding interest in American history
and American religion, it really wasn't his specialty. It was Talcott Parsons who, having been invited
by Daedalusto contribute a piece on American religion, declined and then arm-twisted Bellah into pinch-
hitting for him. One can well imagine that Bellah was astonished at the critical response to what he
must himself have considered a very bright and perceptive, but not well worked out conceptualization."
TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH 131
2Linderand Pierardhave placed the 1970 rally in the context of RichardNixon's exploitationof
"civilreligionto rallysupportfor his policies."Nixon and BillyGrahamrecruitedBob Hope, Hobart
Lewisof Reader'sDigest,and hotelierJ. WillardMarriottto organizethe rally (Linderand Pierard,
1978:108-109). They alsocite the recollectionsof aideJebMagruderwho, alongwith other Nixon aides,
saw it as "a politicalevent" in supportof Nixon's Viet Nam policy (Magruder,1974:119).
132 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS
Drawing a line between 1973 and 1974 to separate phase one from phase two
in the ACR discussion is an arbitrarychoice, but not without support. By 1976 the
Annual Review of Sociologyprovided a status report.
Clearly, the stakes were higher than during the first phase of discussion.
One gets a sense of those higher stakes first from the plethora of new materials
on ACR - majorbooks by a single or multipleauthors, specialreviewissuesof journals,
symposia, and many key articles. Beginning in 1975, journals began special issues on
the topic of ACR: Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion(1975, 14[4]); ReligiousEduca-
tion (1975, 70[5]); Forward(1975, 1[3]); SociologicalAnalysis (1976, 37[2]); Journalof
Religion(1976, 56 [3]); ReligiousEducationagain (1976, 71 [3]); and Journalof Ecumenical
Studies(1977, 14 [4]). These issues included many fine articles, plus the early attempts
at bibliographicassessment(Kathan and Fuchs-Kreimer,1975;Hammond, 1976).Mean-
while, the Journalof Churchand State published four major articles plus an editorial
between 1974-77 in what has been the most consistent contribution by any journal
throughout the ACR discussion.
More important than the sheer volume of materials on ACR were the growing
diversity and significanceof the issues in question. Several important books appeared,
including one that may yet be the best collection of essays on ACR (Richey and Jones,
1974). Key commentators on American religion - Novak (1974), Neuhaus (1975),
and Marty (1976) - made major contributions during that second phase. Moodie's
analysis of the "religiousdimension of the state" of South Africa was the first cross-
cultural test of Bellah's "unsystematicdescription" of ACR (Moodie, 1975:296).Then
Hart (1977)extended Bellah'suse of PresidentialInauguralAddressesin his interpretation
of ACR rhetoric. Religionists joined the fray and offered a variety of theologically-
oriented reactions (cf. Richardson, 1974; Barnette, 1976; Osborn, 1976). One major
point of contention was the nature of the relationship (positive or negative) that ACR
could have to orthodox faiths and church expressions. Empirical studies also emerg-
ed, mostly favorable to the social reality of ACR (cf. Wimberley, 1976; Wimberley,
Clelland, Hood, and Lipsey, 1976).
TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH 133
Two conceptual clarifications of the diversity within ACR were offered by Jones
and Richey and by Marty. Jones and Richey "located" Bellah's ACR as one of five
"interrelatedmeanings of civil religion"(1974:14).As had Mead (1967), Bellah referred
to ACR as a "transcendent universal religion of the nation" which provides mean-
ing, solidarity, and understanding of the American experience (Jones and Richey,
1974:15-16). Bellah's ACR contrasted with similar, but differing ideas such as civil
piety or religious nationalism. Meanwhile, Marty (1974b) proposed a matrix of "two
kinds of two kinds of civil religion," having both priestly or prophetic styles plus
emphases on either national self-transcendenceor a transcendent deity. Marty placed
Bellah in the self-transcendent, prophetic cell of his 2 x 2 matrix of civil religion.
For every Hammond or Wimberley supporting Bellah, several critics took issue
with his notions. Two articulate opponents during this phase were Wilson (cf. 1971,
1974) and Fenn (1974, 1976). Wilson's critiques were based on both conceptual and
historical differenceswith Bellah's reading of a structuredcivil religion, and he opined
that "the evidence is inadequate to sustain [Bellah's ACRI hypothesis" (Wilson,
1974:133).Fenn differedwith Bellah on questions of values and on levels of individual,
societal, and cultural differentiation in ACR, especially in their lively exchange in
SociologicalAnalysis (1976:160-68).
In retrospect, the Bicentennial observance of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence on July 4, 1976 stands near the apex of the significance of ACR as a
social construction but also is an early indication that academic interest in ACR was
not likely to increase further. Bellah had rejected earlier suggestions that ACR was
declining by challenging, "If you think the civil religion is dead, just wait until 1976"
(1973:14). But the Bicentennial was not as significant a civilly religious spectacle as
anticipated. Although
Later Bellah looked back on the Bicentennial and the Presidentialcampaigns of 1976
and remarked, "In 1976 what we got was vague and listless allusions to a largely mis-
understood and forgotten past, and an attitude toward the present that seems to be
determined, above everything else, not to probe beneath the thinnest of surfaces"
(Bellah, 1978b:22).
Bellah kept the discussion alive throughout the second period, in part by empha-
sizing the evaluative aspects of ACR, especially in their potential for cultural conflict
alongside their integrative function (1974c, 1974d, 1975a, 1975b, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c,
1976d). His 1971 Weil Lectures at Hebrew Union College published as The Broken
Covenantin 1975 demonstrate his efforts to combine cultural analysis of ACR with
prophetic warning. Eventually we read, "Today the American civil religion is an empty
and broken shell.... The main drift of American society is to the edge of the abyss"
(1975a:142, 158). Those who had read Bellah carefully since 1967 were not totally
surprised (cf. Stauffer, 1975). Others were shocked, and at least one consequence of
134 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS
Although the debate over ACR may have peaked in 1976-77, that did not mean
things subsidedrapidly.Indeed, duringa third phase of responsein 1978-82,the journals
issued a varietyof discussion,much of which has not been cited elsewherein a coherent
bibliographic sense.
Two small-scaleexamples illustratehow discussion of ACR had reached a plateau,
then declined gradually, almost imperceptibly, over the several years of phase three.
First, Wimberley and occasional co-author Christenson published six more articles,
half in SociologicalAnalysis,usually as empiricalrefinements in support of ACR. These
stopped in 1982. A second example of the plateau of ACR interest after 1977 was
the role of the Journalof Churchand State. In 1979-80, it published six more articles,
including five in a valuable 1980 issue on ACR (cf. especially Hughes; Mount; Rice;
and Watts - all 1980). Although that JCS special issue on ACR was later than those
of the golden age of phase two, it was also one of the best. Thus both Wimberley
and JCS demonstrate how the phase three literaturecontinued to explore issues raised
previously in the ACR debate.
Several books made significant contributions between 1978-82, although usually
expanding on earlier topics. Bellah with Hammond each contributed four essays to
a book, one of whose strengths was its cross-cultural,comparative case studies of civil
religion in Japan, Mexico, and Italy (Bellah and Hammond, 1980). Such contrasts
of Americancivil religion with civil religion elsewhere were helpful. Fenn pursued his
earlier differences with Bellah in a monograph on secularization (1978), arguing that
"secularizationmakes ambiguous and problematical the symbols by which the nation
expresses what is 'more than' the interaction of the state and the other parts"(Fenn,
1978:43).Cuddihy (1978)willfullymisreadACR as the religionof civility, while positing
that ACR is "intrusive, incivil" and "inherently subversive of the proud elitist core-
claims" of traditional religious expressions (Cuddihy, 1978:2, 27).
The most significant judgment of the limitations of Bellah's ACR during phase
three came from Wilson (1979) who had been a part of the ACR debate throughout
the 1970s. Now Handy (1980:344) saw Wilson (1979) as an "important monograph,"
signalling a "decisive turn" in the ACR debate. Wilson argued that ACR must be
interpreted as one possible construction of a larger public religion, rather than inter-
preted only on its own terms. By contrast, Bellah had been guilty from the outset
of a systematic ambiguity and equivocation on whether a well-institutionalized civil
religion ever existed (Wilson, 1979, esp. ch. 7). But what Wilson said was not new;
he merely more fully articulated what he had been saying about ACR since 1971.
Thus the golden age of ACR discussion was past; a plateau of reflection dominated
the scene.
TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH 135
By the time one observerlamentedthat the discussionof ACR had been "largely
shapedby a distinctsociologicalperspective"(Little, 1984:401),in fact the majority
of sociologistshad withdrawnfromthe ACR discussion.The threemajorAmerican
136 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS
FIGURE 1
Social Construction -.
/
/
II II Ii II II II I I
I I
I
I
I I I III I I II I i I
60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87
Year
CONCLUSION
American civil religion since Bellah (1967) has displayed an unusual life course.
It can be conceptualizedmost adequately in terms of three distinct, but related, dimen-
sions varying through four phases during the past 20 years. As a social construction
brought into existence by Robert Bellah, ACR faded along with memories of the 1976
Bicentennialobservance. Subsequently, as a topic of intense academicdiscussion,ACR
nearly disappearedfrom the literature, was crowded aside by more pressing concerns,
or was reinterpreted in terms of alternative conceptual schemes.
As historical reality, however, ACR has been resilient, episodic, and dualistic.
After it declined in the 1970s, it reemerged in the 1980s. It continues to offer more
than one vision of American history and experiencethat Americans never may perceive
with a single eye. Hammond was right. ACR is a river with an identifiable current,
but with more than one form.
TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH 141
SELECTEDREFERENCES
citationof allthe literature
is selectedin thatit doesnot attempta comprehensive
Thislistof references
on Americancivilreligion.ConsultRicheyandJones(1974),KathanandFuchs-Kreimer (1975),Hammond
(1976),Wilson (1979),Gehrig(1981a), and Menendez (1985)as sources.
additional Here are the signifi-
cant sourcesfrom phasesone and two (1967-77),plus as many relevantsourcesas possiblefromphases
threeand four(1977-88).Articlesfrompopularmagazinesgenerallyarenot included.For convenience,
citationsare listed accordingto the periodicityschemefrom the articleabove. Some authorsappear
in more than one phase.
PHASE2: AMERICANCIVILRELIGION,1974-77
Anthony, Dick and Thomas Robbins. 1975. "From symbolic realism to structuralism." Journalfor the
ScientificStudyof Religion14:403-14.
Balitzer, Alfred. 1974. "Some thoughts about civil religion." Journal of Church and State 16:31-50.
Barnette, Henlee. 1976. "Civil religion in America." Review and Expositor73:151-59.
Bellah, Robert N. 1974a. "American civil religion in the 1970s," pp. 255-72 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
(revision of Bellah, 1973).
. 1974b. "New religious consciousness." New Republic 171 (21):33-41.
. 1974c. "Reflections on reality in America." Radical Religion 1:38-49.
. 1974d. "Religion and polity and America." Andover Newton Quarterly 15 (Nov.):107-23.
. 1975a. The Broken Covenant. New York: Seabury.
1975b. "Rejoinderto Lockwood: 'Bellah and his critics'."AnglicanTheologicalReview 57:416-23.
. 1976a. "Civil religion and the American future." ReligiousEducation 71:235-43.
. 1976b. "Civil religion: the sacred and the political in American life." PsychologyToday9 (1):58-65.
. 1976c. "Comment on 'Bellah and the new orthodoxy'." SociologicalAnalysis 37:167-68.
. 1976d. "Response to the panel on civil religion." SociologicalAnalysis 37:153-59.
. 1976e. "The revolution and the civil religion," pp. 53-73 in Brauer, q.v.
Bennett, W. Lance. 1975. "Political sanctification: the civil religion and American politics." SocialScience
Information 14:79-102.
Bonhovsky, Frederick 0. 1976. "American civil religion - and others." Worldview 19 (10):13-19.
Bourg, Carroll J. 1976a. "Foreword." SociologicalAnalysis 37 (2):n.p.
. 1976b. "A symposium on civil religion." SociologicalAnalysis 37:141-49.
Bowden, Henry Warner. 1975. "A historian's response to the concept of American civil religion." Jour-
nal of Churchand State 17:495-505.
Brauer, Jerald C. (ed.). 1976. Religionand the American Revolution. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Cole, William A., and Phillip E. Hammond. 1974. "Religious pluralism, legal development and societal
complexity: rudimentary forms of civil religion." Journalfor the Scientific Studyof Religion 13:177-89.
Demerath, N. J., III and W. C. Roof. 1976. "Religion - recent strands in research," pp. 19-33 in Alex
Inkeles, James Coleman, and Neil Smelser (eds.), Annual Review of Sociology2.
Donahue, Bernard F. 1975. "The political use of religious symbols: a case study of the 1972 presidential
campaign." Review of Politics 37:48-65.
Eisenstein, Ira. 1976. "Is the U.S. ready for a civil religion?" ReligiousEducation 71:227-30.
Fenn, Richard K. 1974. "Religion and legitimation of social systems," pp. 143-61 in Allan W. Eister
in the ScientificStudyof Religion.New York: Wiley.
(ed.), ChangingPerspectives
. 1976. "Bellah and the new orthodoxy." SociologicalAnalysis 37:160-66.
Garrett, James Leo, Jr. 1974. " 'Civil religion': clarifying the semantic problem." Journalof Church and
State 16:187-96.
Gleason, Philip. 1977. "Blurring the line of separation: education, civil religion, and teaching about
religion." Journal of Church and State 19:517-38.
Greeley, Andrew M. 1975. "The civil religion of ethnic Americans." ReligiousEducation 70:499-514.
Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1975. "Review symposium: editor's introduction." Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 14:385-89.
Hammond, Phillip E. 1974. "Religious pluralism and Durkheim's integration thesis," pp. 115-42 in Allan
in the ScientificStudyof Religion.New York:Wiley.
W. Eister(ed.), ChangingPerspectives
. 1976. "The sociology of American civil religion: a bibliographic essay." SociologicalAnalysis
37:169-82.
Hart, Roderick P. 1977. The Political Pulpit. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Henderson, Charles P., Jr. 1975. "Civil religion and the American presidency." Religious Education
70:473-85.
Johnson, Benton. 1976. "Comments." SociologicalAnalysis 37:150-52.
Jones, Donald G. and Russell E. Richey. 1974. "The civil religion debate," pp. 3-19 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Kathan, Boardman W., and Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer. 1974. "Bibliographyon civil religion." ReligiousEduca-
tion 70:541-50.
Kessler, Sanford. 1977. "Tocqueville on civil religion and liberal democracy." Journalof Politics39:119-46.
Lincoln, C. Eric. 1975. "Americanity:the third force in American pluralism."ReligiousEducation70:485-99,
575-76.
TWENTY YEARS AFTER BELLAH 143
Linder, Robert D. 1975. "Civil religion in historical perspective: the reality that underlies the concept."
Journalof Churchand State 17:399-421.
Lockwood, Joan. 1975. "Bellah and his critics: an ambiguity in Bellah's concept of civil religion." Anglican
TheologicalReview57:395-415.
Long, Charles H. 1974. "Civil rights - civil religion: visible people and invisible religion," pp. 211-21
in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Lor, Aaron, 1975. "From civil to traditional religion." Religious Education 70:514-18.
Marty, Martin E. 1974a. "A nation of behavers." Worldview 17 (5):9-13.
. 1974b. "Two kinds of two kinds of civil religion," pp. 139-59 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
. 1976. A Nation of Behavers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1977. "God's almost chosen people." American Heritage 28 (5):4-6.
Marx, Leo. 1974. "The uncivil response of American writers to civil religion in America," pp. 222-53
in Richey and Jones, q.v.
McDowell, Jennifer. 1974. "Soviet civil ceremonies." Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion 13:265-79.
McFadden, Thomas M. (ed.). 1976. America in Theological Perspective.New York: Seabury.
Mead, Sidney E. 1975. The Nation with the Soul of a Church. New York: Harper & Row.
Moltmann, Jurgen (ed.). 1974. Religionand Political Society. New York: Harper & Row.
Moodie, T. Dunbar. 1975. The Rise of Afrikanerdom.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Neal, Marie Augusta. 1976. "Civil religion, theology, and politics in America," pp. 99-122 in McFad-
den, q.v.
Neuhaus,RichardJohn. 1975. TimeTowardHome:The AmericanExperience
as Revelation.New York:
Seabury.
Novak, Michael. 1974. ChoosingOur King:PowerfulSymbolsin PresidentialPolitics.New York: Macmillan.
. 1975. Review of Time TowardHome by Richard John Nehaus. New Republic173 (Nov. 22):30-32.
. 1976. "Peril to Christianity or opportunity for ecumenism? a consideration of American civil
religion." Encounter37:245-58.
Regan, Daniel. 1976. "Islam, intellectuals, and civil religion in Malaysia." SociologicalAnalysis 37:95-110.
Reynolds, Frank E. 1977. "Civic religion and national community in Thailand." Journalof Asian Studies
36:267-82.
Richardson, Herbert. 1974. "Civil religion in theological perspective,"pp. 161-84 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Richey, Russell E. and Donald G. Jones (eds.). 1974. AmericanCivil Religion.New York: Harper & Row.
Robbins, Thomas, Dick Anthony, Madeline Doucas, and Thomas Curtis. 1976. "The last civil religion:
Reverend Moon and the Unification Church." SociologicalAnalysis 37:111-26.
Ross, Don S. 1975. "Civil religion in America." Religion in Life 44:24-35.
Schneider, Mary L. 1976a. "The American civil religious course: problems and perspectives." Religious
Education 7:317-29.
. 1976b. "A Catholic perspective on American civil religion," pp. 123-39 in McFadden, q.v.
Smith, Elwyn A. 1977. "The civil religion: is it a viable concept?" Journalof EcumenicalStudies 14:113-24.
Smith, Kalmin D. 1975. "The politics of civil religion." American Benedictine Review 26:89-106.
Stauffer, Robert E. 1975. "Bellah's civil religion." Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion 14:390-94.
Strout, Cushing. 1974.The New Heavensand the New Earth:PoliticalReligionin America.New York:
Harper & Row.
Wallace, Ruth A. 1977. "Emile Durkheim and the civil religion concept." Review of ReligiousResearch
18:287-90.
Warner, W. Lloyd. 1974. "An American sacred ceremony," pp. 89-113 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Wilson, John F. 1974. "A historian's approach to civil religion," pp. 115-38 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Wimberley, Ronald C. 1976. "Testing the civil religion hypothesis." SociologicalAnalysis 37:341-52.
, Donald A. Clelland, Thomas C. Hood, and C. M. Lipsey. 1976. "The civil religious dimen-
sion: is it there?" Social Forces 54:890-900.
PHASE3: AMERICANCIVILRELIGION,1978-82
Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 1978. "National trauma and changing religious values." Daedalus 107:13-30.
Albanese, Catherine L. 1981. America: Religiousand Religion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
. 1982. "Dominant and public center: reflections on the 'one' religion of the United States."
SouthAtlanticQuarterly81:14-29.
144 SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS
PHASE4: AMERICANCIVILRELIGION,1983-88