“Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain”: A Critique of the Rational Choice Approach to Religion

What is it about?

The shortcomings of secularization theories are well known. The theoretical problems with Rational Choice applied to religion are less known, in part because its critics have usually been defending secularization theory, and in part because the battle has been fought mostly within a positivist framework. In this sense, critiques of RCAR have been ‘downstream minded’: they have accepted the validity of rational choice principles with respect to markets and consumption but have argued that religion “is not quite like choosing an everyday product”. But do those principles actually explain markets and consumption? Sociologists of religion have overlooked several serious critiques that say “no”. This article presents a critical discussion of RCAR that is situated ‘upstream’ of the approach, by showing that its core principles have long been contested in the field of economics itself. Some of that critique came from early 20th-century sociologists and anthropologists, who witnessed neo-classical economists’ reification of the ‘free market’ and its growing reliance on utilitarian models. Further critique comes from recent economists, who emphasize the rational choice approach’s “rickety foundations”. Rather than testing the efficacy of the rational-choice hypothesis, such a depth critique focuses on the way the theory is built, seeking to understand what the theory sees and what it leaves in the shadows. By doing this, we understand why RCAR has been an analytical failure.

Featured Image