Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract In 2001, John Levi Martin published a critique of authoritarianism scholarship, arguing that it was marred by fundamental biases of tautology, selective interpretation, and overtheorization of some research subjects but neglect of others. Drawing from this critique, I argue that Christian nationalism scholarship in sociology operates as a variant of authoritarianism research, exhibiting similar claims, strengths, and shortcomings. In a short span of time, the Christian nationalism research agenda has come to dominate the sociological study of religion and enjoyed a high profile in public discourse, presumably due to its relevance to matters of acute political concern. However, this literature interprets empirical results based on unverified assumptions of essentially authoritarian goals and motivations while ignoring plausible alternative explanations. It further neglects respondents who are low on Christian nationalism measures, despite evidence that these respondents play a role in religiopolitical conflict. The result is an essentialist account of Christian nationalism that is politically resonant but theoretically problematic. I propose that these issues can be addressed by a shift away from essentialist and toward social models of belief systems, which offer important advantages: greater consistency with current theories of political polarization, a stronger sociological element, and less susceptibility to researcher bias.
J. V. Smith (2024) studied this question.