The term "postsecular" is proliferating in the writings of scholars working in the humanities and social sciences. This article assesses the variety of meanings attributed to the term, groups them in six clusters of ideas, and raises questions about the tensions that exist between some of its different meanings. Taking the central idea that religions enjoy relatively high visibility in the public sphere of postsecular societies, the article then considers how well this applies to the case of Britain. It argues that the visibility of religion in Britain's public sphere-far from being postsecular in any of the current meanings of the term-is actually associated with the state's "interpellation" of selected religions as partners in the delivery of public policies for managing diversity, combating inequality, and promoting social enterprise.

Many aspects of religion are puzzling these days. This 2003 book looks at ways of improving our understanding of religious change by strengthening the links between social theory and the social scientific study of religion. It clarifies the social processes involved in constructing religion and non-religion in public and private life. Taking illustrations of the importance of these boundaries from studies of secularisation, religious diversity, globalisation, religious movements and self-identity, Beckford reviews social scientific knowledge about religion and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of a wide range of theoretical attempts to account for religious change and continuity. The discussion goes in two directions. The first is towards identifying ways in which studies of religion would benefit from taking better account of themes in recent social theory. The second is towards identifying reasons for social theorists to pay more attention to the findings of empirical investigations of religion.

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.

No abstract

The author's aim is to offer some critical observations on usage of the terms 'community' and 'faith community'. The central argument is that 'community' is a weasel word that occurs frequently in discourses at the levels of everyday life, public policymaking, welfare services and social scientific analysis. The article begins by reviewing relatively uncontentious uses of 'community'. The second section of the article analyses the UK government's usage of the term 'faith community' in policy documents since 1997. And the third section explores two particularly problematic issues: on the one hand a tension that arises within official discourses about faith communities and, on the other, the UK government's practice of treating faith communities as if they were undifferentiated collectivities. The conclusion urges sociologists of religion to avoid uncritically reproducing official discourses about faith communities. RésuméLe but principal de cet article est de passer en revue l'emploi des termes « communauté » et « communauté de foi ». L'argument central est que « communauté » est un mot ambigu qui se rencontre souvent dans les discours aux niveaux de la vie quotidienne, de la politique publique, de l'assistance publique ainsi que de l'analyse social scientifique. Dans un premier temps l'article considère les usages peu controversés du terme. Ensuite il interroge l'emploi du terme « communauté de foi » dont les documents CompassBeckford: 'Community' in the sociology of religion: The case of Britain research-article2015Article Social Compass 62(2) officiels du gouvernement britannique font usage à partir de 1997. La troisième partie examine deux questions particulièrement difficiles : d'une part la tension qui se produit dans les discours officiels sur les communautés de foi, et d'autre part, la tendance du gouvernement britannique à interpeller les communautés de foi comme si elles représentaient des collectivités non différenciées. En guise de conclusion, l'article invite les sociologues des religions à éviter de reproduire naïvement les discours officiels sur les communautés de foi.