1.5.1 The Religious Environment
Orru et al. (1991) reject a simple divide between technical and institutional
spheres that separates old and new institutionalism for the economic organizations in East Asia, based on the reasoning that such organizations are subject to both competitive and cultural pressures. Similarly, I contend here that the religious environment in the U.S.
must be considered as both a technical and cultural environment as well and as such is susceptible to both competitive and institutional isomorphism, though not, as we shall see, to the same degree. Institutional environments are those where the survival of the organization depends on following existing rules and regulations. In this environment the appearance of efficiency takes center stage. Into this domain neoinstitutionalists have tended to group non-profit, charitable and government agencies. The classic example here is DiMaggio’s analysis of the rise of the non-profit arts field where he demonstrates that the solidification of the organizational form which characterizes the field has more to do with the surrounding environment than technical efficiency (DiMaggio 1991).
Technical environments are those where products are freely and openly exchanged.
Efficient, productive organizations are rewarded in this environment. Scholars typically have placed all for-profit organizations into this realm. However, as demonstrated earlier, there is a call to abandon this dichotomy and realize that all environments contain elements of both technical and institutional pressures. Religion in contemporary U.S.
society is a perfect example of these competing pressures. Rational choice theorists taking a market approach to religion (Iannaccone 1997; Stark 1997; Stark and Bainbridge 1996) have demonstrated that religion in the U.S. is, to some extent, a marketplace where organizations compete with one another for resources (i.e., money, people, time, power).
At the same time, Wuthnow (1987, 1988) and others (Berger 1990 [1967], Berger and Luckman 1967 [1966]) have shown that environmental forces work to constrain choice and action while allowing for survival and persistence of some organizations. This combination makes the field of religion in the U.S. an ideal place to locate a study about the forces of institutionalization and the pressures of all four kinds of isomorphism:
competitive, coercive, normative, mimetic. A prime example of both technical and institutional forces coming together is found in the role of the pastor who is subject to both technical-competitive pressures to be able to provide specific religious and secular services (e.g., budget balancing, pastoral care, overseeing building projects, etc.) and institutional pressures to deliver these services in a very specific way in accordance with both local tradition and professional training (Blizzard 1956; Brunette-Hill and Finke 1999; Monahan 1999; Towler and Coxon 1979).
A search of sociological abstracts reveals only one article dealing directly with institutionalism and religious organizations (McMullen 1994). A notable exception to
this general trend is the 1998 edited volume by Demerath et al., Sacred Companies, which sought to bring neoinstitutional theory to bear directly on religious organizations and to use the sociology of religion to enhance our understanding of organizational theory. However, this work has garnered relatively little attention in the years following its initial publication. This is not due to the fact that the institutionalism literature has no bearing on religious organizations or vice versa. Indeed, DiMaggio states in the opening chapter:
Insofar as students of religion concern themselves with such formal organizations as congregations, denominations, and religiously affiliated schools and service agencies, it seems plausible that they may also benefit from applying insights and methods from the study of organizations in their research…Ultimately, however, students of religion will have to adapt organization theory’s conceptual and methodological tools to the contours of their own field. And, if they do, focused attention to organizational aspects of religion may redound to the benefit of organization theory itself…” (1998:20-21)
I quote DiMaggio at length here to show that there is potential utility to be gained by integrating these two literatures. DiMaggio is correct to point out that the two fields are compatible, as the environment within which religious organizations typically operate is both institutionalized and competitive.
1.5.2 Characteristics of Religious Organizations
Any examination of the sociology of religion literature suggests that there are, indeed, many important insights to be gained by applying institutional theories to religious organizations. Stout and Cormode (1998:68) note that
[t]here are many examples of institutional isomorphism in American religious history. Polity, for example, was once central to a denomination’s self-identity and separated one ecclesiastical tradition from another. Episcopalians,
Congregationalists, and Presbyterians took their very names from their polities.
Yet the organizational revolution of the late 19th century penetrated these
denominations so deeply that they have each come to shed hierarchical differences and resemble one homogenous type.
They go on to describe in detail examples of each kind of isomorphism at work in the field of religion.
Significantly there is also evidence of resistant organizations in the field of
religion, though these, of course, have not been the subject of intense, systematic study in this area. Perhaps the most interesting modern corollary to my case within the field of religious organizations is the Falun Gong in China. The Falun Gong has garnered increasing attention across disciplines in recent years in wake of the Chinese government crack-down in 1999. Structurally, researchers have demonstrated an organizational structure which is decentralized and non-hierarchical with few, if any, rules and regulations and a constituency which claims that Falun Gong is neither a religion or a movement (Tong 2002; Ownby 2005). Tong (2002:637) writes
According to Falun Gong sources, at the time of its suppression on 22 July 1999, it had no national organizational structure, address or authority arrangement.
There were also no stated organizational goals, regulations or by-laws. It claims that its practitioners were free to join or leave at any time, not bound by a set of obligations and duties, and not listed in any Falun Gong rosters. Its congregations were sites where adherents gathered to practice meditation and spiritual
cultivation.
All of these characteristics have the effect of keeping Falun Gong from becoming
institutionalized as there is no opportunity to establish patterns which may become taken for granted. As I mentioned earlier the reliance on individual intervention for
organizational activities to take place necessarily means that the organization is not institutionalized.
The most promising historical group which has managed to resist a high degree of
institutionalization is the Quakers. The Society of Friends has been around since the mid-1600s and currently has over 300,000 members who participate in a religious
organization which avoids centralization, hierarchy and official positions of status (Leach 2005). However, Quakers have not traditionally been an evangelical group. Although some variation does exist, they do not typically proselytize or actively attempt to convert new members. The theories of legitimacy and institutionalization that I am using here assume a desire for growth as fundamental. This makes them a less than perfect
corollary. While the Quakers may provide a compelling example of an organization with similar characteristics to that which I propose to study, the lack of a desire for rapid organizational growth and ideology dissemination makes them somewhat problematic.
Religious scholars concerned with organizations have identified the location of authority, organization of labor, system of governance, the role of professionals, and ideology as the most common dimensions of religious organizations and thus, the components subject to the most isomorphic pressures (Benson and Dorsett 1971;
Demerath et al. 1998; Harris 1998; Sider and Unruh 2004). These components line up with structure, process and ideology definition of an organization described above. Any serious examination of institutionalization and legitimacy must necessarily begin with these components in mind. I discuss each of these in depth in chapters below.