RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

CRITICALLY ASSESS THE RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

Table of Contents

Introduction3

Rationality6

Rational choice rationality and the Weberian perspective6

Meeting Demand: The Religious Comparisons of Rational Choice13

Monopolism, Competition, and Conflict16

Conclusions19

References22

Introduction

Rational Choice Theory is an approach used by social scientists to understand human behavior. The approach has long been the dominant paradigm in economics, but in recent decades it has become more widely used in other disciplines such as Sociology, Political Science, and Anthropology.

Like rational choice theorists in other areas of study, rational choice theorists of religion have attempted to build up a body of generalizations which are transcultural and transhistorical. They have adopted methodological individualism, and beginning with the axiom that individuals choose in accord with what is of optimal utility for them, they have followed a logico-deductive mode of theorizing characterized by a high level of formularization of definitions and propositions. They write that they are perfectly aware that individuals do not always act rationally, but they claim that their simplifying assumptions and ideal-typical models can generate high-level explanations (Stark and Finke 2000:36-41; lannaccone 1997).

There are a number of general critiques of rational choice theory (Hindess 1988; Mouzelis 1991:146-53, 1995:28-40) which may well be relevant to the application of the perspective to the field of religion. It has been argued, for example, that when rational choice theorists refuse to take into account emergent' structures, history, and socio-cultural contexts, their statements tend to be either wrong or trivial, and when they do seriously consider these wider frameworks their theory loses its logico-deductive elegance (Mouzelis 1995:5-6; Lechner 1990; Chaves 1995; Beyer 1998). There are, however, problems specific to the rational choice theory of religion as formulated by Rodney Stark and his associates, Bainbridge, lannaccone, and Finke. In a trenchant critique Bryant (2000) has questioned the appropriateness of the cost-benefit model and the use of metaphors such as "markets," "commodities," "exhange-value," and "capital" in the analysis of religion.

The Paper addresses two issues which, although noted in previous critiques of rational choice theory, have not been given detailed attention. Firstly, the notion of rationality in rational choice theory. Secondly, the contradiction between the rational choice theorists formulation of universalistic propositions and their empirical focus on Christianity.

With respect to the second issue, some critics concede that rational choice theory has contributed significantly to the analysis of religion in the United States, but there is the question of whether this theory, which one critic (Simpson 1990:371) has described as "gloriously American," can account for levels and patterns of religiosity elsewhere (Carroll 1996; Beyer 1998). Unlike Stephen Warner (1993, 1997), who has explicitly limited what he calls the "new paradigm" in the sociology of religion to the United States, the rational choice theorists have claimed to be presenting a general theory of universal propositions (Stark and Bainbridge 1987:12-21). In fact, with the exception of Stark's recent book One true god (2001), references by rational choice theorists to religions other than Christianity have been rare and brief. If, as Laurence R. Iannaccone (1998:1489-1490) has pronounced, rational choice theory has "set off ...