Privatization of Religion: Between T. Luckmann and J. Casanova

The article discusses the complexity and relevance of the concept of privatization, which is formulated in different theoretical languages, forming different types. Comparing the deprivatization of J. Casanova and the privatization of T. Luckmann, two types can be distinguished: 1) privatization-marginalization — that is, privatization with a clearly expressed political connotation external to religion, which, as Casanova believes, is based on the positivist theory of the staged development of society as a universal, "natural", progressive movement from religious to secular (modern) consciousness; 2) privatization-deinstitutionalization — trying to trace the internal transformation of religion in the differentiated social spheres, Luckmann excludes religion not from the public sphere, but from the generally accepted understanding of religion as a Church institution. Luckmann's theoretical language provides us with sufficient tools to describe how churches can maintain their public visibility, actualizing the lives of believers who belong to them. Casanova, who writes about deprivatization, has in mind the phenomenon that is the opposite of privatization-marginalization, while Luckmann writes primarily about privatization-deinstitutionalization. Privatization in Luckmann's sense and deprivatization in Casanova's are not contradictory, but rather are parts of a general process of transformation of religion in the contemporary world.