The publication of Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics is an important landmark in the study of religion and politics and especially in the subfield of religion and politics in APSA. It was only a few years before in the late 1980s that the section was founded and, in some ways, this could be seen as its first act. Contributors, most of whom were founders of the section (with a stray sociologist), got together to propose items for the 1989 ANES pilot study and 1990 Congressional Study that formed the bases for this volume. Of course, most of those items were adopted by the ANES for the next dozen and a half years. It is was a remarkable display of collective action and worked to the benefit of a generation of scholars. It addressed many doubts about whether political behavior and attitudes followed religious distinctions—religion was no longer easily assumed to be epiphenomenal. We who are reading this are indebted to their efforts.
The “white book,” as we commonly refer to it, was an agenda-setting effort. And how could it not, given that it set the measures for a generation. It is a book I have gone back to again and again for ideas, findings, and citations (see Figure 1 for evidence). But it was more than a collection of measures; it laid down tributaries of inquiry, though only some were followed. So, what I would like to do here is recap what channels research has followed and which rivers are still untamed. To me, the white book is more important for what it did not do.
Figure 1. Djupe's personal copy of Rediscovering with notes intact
The introductory chapters are tours de force of scope and motivation for capturing religion. If it has been easy to forget at times why it is that we measure religion, then you should read (or re-read) David Leege's introduction which places religion squarely within debates about social theory. In strong contradistinction with approaches that justify the study of religion because it reduces variance, Leege gives us motivations of religious presence relative to the state, to control society, and to contribute to public debate. Taking Leege's discussion seriously involves careful rethinking about the nature of the questions we ask about religion and politics; our justifications have to be more substantive than simply that “religion matters.” The Wald-Smidt discussion of measurement strategies is likewise full and rich and creative.
Three sections follow, pursuing the dimensions of association, the degree of attachment, and the content of religious experience. It was in the first set of chapters that we learn what a tangled, sometimes incoherent thicket is religious identity, how to reasonably set up denominational categories, and the high degree to which denominational attachment was stable at this time. If people did not know how to identify with religious movements clearly, Americans could attach themselves (more or less well) to denominational labels with some guidance and reminders from survey instruments. However, we would be wise to keep in mind that: “it has never been clear whether such measures refer to ethnic histories, doctrinal beliefs, social status, or group social attachments” (Kellstedt and Green, chapter 3: 53).
This sets the stage for what Kellstedt in the conclusion calls “the centerpiece of the volume” (282)—explorations of religious commitment. People attend, may get further involved or pray by themselves, and may find religion salient to their lives. Set atop confident placement into denominations, “that share common beliefs, practices, and commitments” (53–54), then we have a scheme that captures what content people might be committed to (denominations) and then how strongly. The religious commitment approach in nearly its modern form was born in the conclusion of this book where Bud successfully correlated a complicated index of these items with a variety of political variables in “A Test of Religious Commitment” (293).
In this way, the impact of the volume is much more limited than the soaring introductory chapters suggest. The belief items were given second fiddle, in part surely because of the difficulty of generating omnibus belief measures from a bewildering array of beliefs in plural America. A biblical literalism measure lasted a bit longer in the ANES before getting dropped. Leege and Kellstedt's thoughtful foray into some measures of religious worldviews drew not on ANES data, but data from “special-purpose surveys” (289). Those individualism-communitarianism measures did not resurface until Leege, Wald, and Mockabee pressed for them in 2006. The investigation of clergy cue giving (in chapter 12) did not rely on actual exposure to information measures, but instead perceptions of them, which is why they are strongly correlated with interest and attitude strength and hence do not tell us all that much.
Thus, the importance of the white book to me is in what it suggested we should do and then did not do itself. In almost every chapter, you will read arguments that belief, identity, and behaviors are informed by what happens in the congregational context. Take chapter 3, “While religious beliefs may be very important, their meaning and relevance are conditioned by the context in which they occur” (54). But in almost no instance are those contingencies investigated because the design and data are not appropriate to do so.
If you find dubious the assumption that congregations within denominations are similar, then it would behoove you to study the variation in congregational composition and communication. If religious identities vary systematically by the social context, then perhaps the social context provides both political information as well as identification norms that would require data about both the religious context and the broader environment in which religious groups function to sort out. If religious worldviews are communicated and instantiated in congregations and communal attachments, then the content and degree of exposure should be captured. In fact, we need to explore just what those worldviews entail that would compel right action toward the ingroup, the outgroup, the state, and the earth.
Put differently, the remaining research agenda from the Leege and Kellstedt volume involves at least:
(1) Careful measurement of what people are exposed to in religious contexts that may supply and condition their beliefs, values, and identities.
(2) Attention to the environment outside congregations that may condition the issues and orientations of religious groups to politics.
(3) Careful thinking about and measurement of the dimensions of worldviews expressed to congregants.
(4) All of this packaged in ways that engages broader debates about the role of religion in democratic politics and society.
All of these concerns are still wild tributaries of religion that have only begun to be explored. They have not yet been channelized so tremendous progress can be made with some effort. To charge these expeditions, I would absolutely recommend revisiting some of the chapters of the Leege and Kellstedt “white book” that contain a treasure trove of big-picture thinking and research ideas to last a lifetime. Moreover, it is simply fun to read the enthusiastic writing of scholars who were finally able to use the measures they had been dreaming about.
