IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v100y2019i4p1369-1386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating Political Habitus: Religion Versus Nonreligion

Author

Listed:
  • James Clark Davidson
  • Christopher M. Pieper

Abstract

Objective Existing literature suggests that religious organizations provide institutional resources and civic skills that facilitate collective action. This study expands this effort by investigating the role of specific religious practices on forms of political engagement and comparing them with secular equivalents. Methods Data used are from Wave IV of the Baylor Religion Survey (n = 1,572) Pearson correlations to explore bivariate relationships and then we present binary logistic regression models for predicting protest engagement. Results Results indicate participation in community‐based religious activities, such as prayer groups or Bible studies, is a robust predictor of traditional means of political participation such as participating in a voter registration drive. The religiously unaffiliated are more likely to engage in protest and other distinct political activities. Conclusion We argue that these divergent processes of political socialization generate two opposite forms of “political habitus” in U.S. culture, and contribute significantly to a historically polarized electorate. These findings also provide an inferential technique for predicting mobilization and/or political engagement style based on religious markers.

Suggested Citation

  • James Clark Davidson & Christopher M. Pieper, 2019. "Creating Political Habitus: Religion Versus Nonreligion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1369-1386, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:4:p:1369-1386
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12643
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12643?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:4:p:1369-1386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.