In Conclusion: This thesis takes us through multiple levels of analysis to show the complexity of religiosity and the value

of characteristic research. The contradiction that initially drove this project's onset was that of a criticism of religious people as stagnant, unable to progress, unwilling to look forward because religion was too rooted in the past, and content with societal stagnancy and injustice. This criticism seems quite familiar as a common strand in popular secular discourses against traditional religious practice, through the voices of public intellectuals and classical theorists. We began the thesis with the question, where does such a criticism come from? Does it hold water when measured in the real world? Bangladesh stood out as a case that housed these conflicts and criticisms, with citizens who have extensive reasons to be frustrated with religion, yet are highly religious themselves. Dhaka in particular presented a religious hotbed of demonstrative action, NGO work, and politically involved populace, presenting the possibility of highly charged and involved opinions. It also stood out as a combination of contexts in which religiosity could mean something very different from what it meant in previously studied cases. As corrupt partisan demonstrations of power would not statistically prove much about religious concern with the public good, my research turned to the individual, behavioral level. What did each individual see as the largest problem in Dhaka? How much have they taken action to see it that happen? This became the measure of activism I would examine: How does religiosity as an individual characteristic relate to a socially concerned activist potential? Is the Marxist criticism of opiate ignoring of issues a true concern? Preliminary narratives from the region and news of religious movements disrupting society over non-progressive concerns make it seem like a valid criticism, while recent academic work on religion's facilitation of social movements suggested otherwise. In an effort to get beyond the headlines, labels, and analysis of groups, I hoped that an individual character and behavior based survey analysis of progressive activist action and various modes of religiosity, combined with a qualitative assessment of narratives and mechanisms, would provide an answer. The context of Dhaka during the surveys revealed important distinctions which would guide my analysis. We were researching a highly religious, ritually devotional population comprised mostly of Muslims, with income inequalities quantitatively less than the US, but experientially higher and tangible for all. The population had been highly politically engaged in the 2008 elections but their current faith in politicians and disruptive activism was extremely low, as was their reported satisfaction with quality of life. Many felt deep social issues of corruption, political instability, city transportation, and inflation. Hopes in solutions through NGO work, donation, and organized voting action were mixed and generally low. The relationships measured presented an answer to one aspect of the question, that the Marxist attitude was incorrect. Regression of activist attitudes against religious actions demonstrated a number of positive relationships in multiple categories, showing that the religious individual is more likely to be engaged in social activist work. Furthermore, the premise of the question "Is religiosity a dampening characteristic for progressive activist engagement?" proved to be incorrect, as religiosity could not be called a singular characteristic in terms of activism. The relationships ranged significantly from positive to negative relationships. Moreover, the narratives of religious negativity towards activism in the qualitative narrative seemed to contradict the quantitative story of positivity. These three findings, of a totaled positivity, a revealed complexity of relationships, and a contradictory narrative, represent the main revelations of this research. They show us that religiosity may be more progressive than our liberal backgrounds might imply. They reveal the value of a survey approach which does not try to lump the characteristic of religiosity into a single measure, and also uses a novel method to differentiate between general types of activism and actions taken to specifically tackle social problems. While we had originally

intended that the qualitative would explain the quantitative, the discrepancy between them left our research with a series of questions. Here, the demographic information and background collected on Bangladesh help us construct a series of hypotheses and directions for future research that may explain the discrepancies in our findings. The underlying story I hypothesize behind the contradiction is that it is not actually a contradiction, but an example of the bigger picture of religiously related activism as defined by self and qualitative narrative, and religiously related activism as examined through actions. The failure of personal narrative to match with measured behavior is a fascinating lesson about the virtues of methodological differentiation. Due to the qualitative approach, we can be keyed into how the religious masses feel, but with a quantitative approach, we can test it against what they do. This reveals the quiet, stable religiosity of Bangladesh's masses who suffer headlines rather than create them. Theirs is a religiosity which positively relates with socially concerned activism and contributes to causes. Yet as the narratives suggest, it may be unsure of its own consistency, a product of the volatile context of a politically charged, religiously polarized society. The findings here guide us in multiple directions. In the pursuit of further understanding this specific question, the thesis suggests exploring the explanatory power of my hypothesized mechanisms of socio-economic stagnancy, the activist stigma, the worshiping society's low level of religious literacy, the weak religious marketplace, and a polarization of contested religiosity. A survey follow up which attempts to extensively document and record the reasons for people's attitudes towards causes, and also measures the anger and frustration religious individuals hold towards religiously labeled political parties, may help us confirm the hypothesized story. Furthermore, we see through this research and proposed mechanisms that the study of religiosity's roles can be highly dependent on specific demographic contexts, and that such mechanisms might change behavior given a different context. This highlights the value of a characteristic-based approach to gain greater detail on examined relationships and to avoid the distractions of labels. The application of these findings is relevant on a specifically Bangladeshi level, a broader academic level, and a general analytical level. We witness how religiosity may be a highly misrepresented characteristic in Bangladesh, and as described by Bangladeshi narratives. Not only is it often identified in narratives as a stagnant aspect of society, when it in fact proves to encourage social activism, but through headlines and narrative strains, religiosity likely becomes unfairly associated with the hyper-disruptive partisan activism the general population despises. Knowledge of this misrepresentation and the other specificities in the findings, will hopefully allow a reader active in Bangladesh to engage issues in Dhaka with a much stronger and less assuming working knowledge of the city's people and their mechanisms. On an academic and general level, the thesis advances the sociological study of religion's role (or rather, its varied roles) in affecting potentials for progressive social activism. It engages the question of the most effective survey methodology for this area, and warns us of possible narrative discrepancies with societal behaviors. The developing societies around the world which parallel Dhaka's situation are extensive, as several South and Southeast Asian countries have similarly religiously inclined and uniform societies experiencing political instability and corruption. The findings here give us a toolbox of methodologies and probable contextual mechanisms to build upon what general sources and popular narratives may be telling us about such societies. Through characteristic-based research methodologies, we can work to portray the complexities behind religious traits, social activism traits, and their relationships with each other, while staying confident of capturing the subtle background truths which headlines and individual narratives will miss.

Appendix A: Dhaka Survey Methodology and Analysis The Dhaka surveys were designed with a few very specific goals in mind: to detect multiple facets of religiosity and to measure a different types of progressive social engagement. Throughout the thesis, when activism is mentioned, it refers to the progressive social engagement measured. Because we did not want to detect activism that was politically motivated or actively related to non-social issues, the survey design asked respondents to list the biggest social problems they took issue with. The measures of activist engagement in response to these issues was measured thereafter, ensuring that the types of activist action we measured was envisioned to solve social problems. To conduct the survey, 400 people were reached door to door, skipping an address after each successful respondent. Distribution points were randomly selected addresses on the electoral grid, with every Dhaka address equally likely to be selected. Field research teams were instructed in the subtleties of how to explain survey questions correctly, and after adequate training , they were split off to start distribution at throughout the metropolis. To ensure that enumerators would not be incentivized to spread or force surveys, they were given a quota beyond which they would not be paid. Later checks with survey respondents confirmed that the data was distributed correctly. Standard demographic data that was collected for control variables included socioeconomic class, gender, and age. Although our sample size was small, it was representative, to a high degree, of Dhaka's socioeconomic, gender, and faith distributions. The analysis of the data required a Spearman's rho test of significance for correlation factors due to the fact that the frequencies in my variables were not in normal distributions. The regression tests and coefficients were obtained using multiple linier regressions. Each social activism method was treated as the dependent variable, with the collection of modes of religiosity listed as the independent variables. This allowed for an equation based on the coefficients of religious qualities, giving us magnitudes of strength for each effect. In the processes of chart-making and counting significant factors, I have colored in the boxes of relationships which scored a significance level of a null probability below .05 for the correlations, and below .1 for the regressions. The reasons for my more lenient standard for the regressions significance threshold are twofold: 1) When I measured at .05 for regressions, I lost a large amount of relationships across the chart. The relationships counted at a 0.05 level of significance were so sparse that any ability to determine larger trends or patterns would be lost. At .1, the relationships which appear are numerous enough to reveal trends and identify important modes of religiosity. 2) Unlike the correlations, the regression analysis in my survey is split into very small sample sizes at certain points, namely when I am analyzing by separate social classes. Due to these small sample sizes, we need a slightly more lenient measure of significance. Nevertheless, to allow readers to see the differences, my charts in the Chapter and in Appendix C are subtly color coded to differentiate those key relationships which were significant at a .05 level. Any color coded boxes with red text achieved a level of significance at 10% probability of chance. All color coded boxes which contain blue text were significant at a 5% level. We might wonder why I used multiple linear regressions instead of PLUM when my characteristics and attitudes were measured against each other. The reason for this was that 1) Perhaps the weaker reason: I am confident in the directional advancement across each ordinal measure in the survey that was analyzed through multiple linear regression. 2) Secondly, analysis of the multiple regression would give us the relative strength of that characteristics' relationships, and most importantly would give us the direction of the relationship rather than just a the goodness of fit.

Regressions - Men

Regression - Women

Regressions - Socioeconomically separated