7.2 Theorists Flashcards
Religion and Social Order
Durkheim
Functionalism
‘There can be no society which does not feel the need of
upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and the collective ideas which make its
unity and personality. Now this moral remaking cannot be achieved except by the means of reunions, assemblies and meetings where the individuals, being closely united to one another, reaffirm in common their common sentiments.’
Social integration is, therefore, an important function of religion, particularly in premodern, tribal societies. There, the development of social solidarity or ‘moral togetherness’ is based on practical
religious mechanisms, such as collective ceremonies and services. In modern societies, religious practice may be important, but it progressively gives way to other forms of ‘religious-type’ practices (from sport to shopping) that serve a similar unifying function.
For Durkheim, therefore, the key to understanding religion is not its content but its effect: ‘The power of society over the individual so transcends individual existence that people collectively give it sacred significance. By worshiping God people are worshiping the power of the collective over all, they are worshiping society.’
Durkheim
Functionalism
Claimed that religious symbols reflect a significant distinction between ‘the sacred’ or special and ‘the profane’ or everyday, although their actual form was not important.
Sacred:
Things that are special because they are the product of a higher being or supernatural power, for example, mosques and churches.
Profane:
Things that are ordinary, average and have no special meaning or purpose like office buildings
Bellah
New Right
argued that in some modern secular states, people worshipped society in a clear way, still based around symbols, but without the supernatural, divine element of traditional religions.
His example is Americanism, the way American society, which was religiously diverse and increasingly secular, coalesced instead around America itself, with the religious symbols being the flag, the national anthem, famous historical figures, etc. americanism itself became a sort of religion where patriotism was combined with values of christianity although with a facade of secularism.
While this might not fit everyone’s definition of religion, it performs the same functions that Durkheim identified and promotes social cohesion, order, stability and prevents radical change, again acting as a conservative force.
While the USA is the clearest example of this, some sociologists have pointed to how strong association with a royal family reveals a similar sort of civil religion (e.g. the public mourning on the death of Princess Diana in the UK).
People can unite around ideas like “God Bless America!” without necessarily all worshipping the same God, or practising the same religion (or practising a religion at all). People can have very different ideas about what happens after death, but can take comfort from someone “dying for their country”.
Argued that secularising/diverse societies develop civil religions – a set of fundamental beliefs shared by the majority of people in a
society.
Criticism: “Americanism” arguably does have this is arguably the application of traditional religious belief to a political ideology, rather than being a religion in its own right.
Bellah
Americanism
With growing secularisation, Bellah argued religion was being replaced with civil religion particularly in the USA. He noted that there were extremely complex relationships between different denominations of Christianity in America and that these differences denoted people becoming more involved in civil religion than traditional religious practices. This new civil religion merged traditional Christian values with American patriotism(CAW CAW) which led to a distinct civil religion based on aspects of American culture developing sacred qualities. As such Americanism became a way of life particularly in the face of growing challenges to the established order of American society.
Bellah argued that civil religion promotes an identity for individuals based on elements of national identity or even ideological ways of life. The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness had long been part of American life but Bellah suggested that this was being embedded into all aspects of American life.
It allowed American society to compensate the greater diversity of religions, particularly with mass migration in the early 20th Century and could include people of all faiths as long as they prioritise the ideals of American life over other beliefs.
Whilst on the surface this can be argued to be inclusive it presented itself as a form of assimilation for migrants into the USA, ensuring that American ideals were followed.
Bellah’s definition of civil religion includes aspects of traditional religion: with artefacts, texts, rituals and ceremonies being part of the national identity. Thanksgiving and Independence Day are two such examples of holidays associated with Americanism. Whilst children reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag each day in school becomes a ritual of American life. Artefacts such as the constitution, the bill of rights, the first ten amendments of the constitution and the American flag take on a sacred quality. Monuments such as the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell have similar significance to Americans as religious monuments.
Malinowski
Functionalism
Religion promotes solidarity by performing psychological functions for individuals, helping them to cope up with stress
- Two types of situations which religion performs this role
- Lagoon fishing is safe while ocean fishing is dangerous, accompanied by ‘canoe magic’- rituals to ensure a safe and successful expedition.
- Events such as birth, puberty, marriage and death mark major changes in social groups.
- Religion helps to minimise disruption.
- Argued religion had more specific functions than Durkheim:
- Religion helps individuals to deal with the psychological stresses which occur in times of social change – such as births, marriage and deaths. Beliefs can help people ‘make sense’ of death for example and can act as a source of catharsis for the bereaved.
- Religious rituals also help society through the disruption to social order caused by life changing events such as death.
- Religion helps people deal with situations which they cannot predict or control – e.g., the Trobriand Islanders used religious ritual when fishing in the dangerous, unpredictable ocean, but not the calm lagoons.
Unlike Durkheim does not see religion as reflecting society as a whole, nor does he see religious ritual as ‘worshipping society’.
Parsons
Functionalism
Talcott Parsons also made a case for religion performing these fundamental functions to integrate people into the value consensus. He argued that religions quite directly socialised people into shared values, which were often stated quite directly by the religion, such as the 10 Commandments in Judaism and Christianity.
He further argues that religion answers the ultimate questions, those that (at least when Parsons was writing) were deemed to beyond the scope of science.
Why do good people suffer or die young? Religions can offer answers in terms of tests of faith and rewards in the afterlife. This gives meaning to what might otherwise seem a meaningless existence.
Bruce
Criticism of Functionalism
‘Social scientists have long been aware of the role of religion as social cement; shared rituals and shared beliefs that bind people together. What is not so often noted is the idea religion often divides one group from another’.
Bruce
Criticism of Functionalism
Bruce argues that the decline in religious belief, particularly in the western world shows that religion fails to fulfil the psychological functions required. With other methods such as science and in particular psychology providing a better understanding of emotional stress for many.
Hamilton
Criticism of Functionalism
Argues that religion can be a source of conflict not solidarity. He believes functionalist ignore how religion can be source of social division & internal conflict
> e.g. Sunni & Shia’s, ignore hate crimes & fundamentalism.
Marx
Marx initially approached society from a scientific perspective and saw religion as a conservative force: one that maintained the status quo of the ruling class’s domination in society. This was of course achieved through religion and other social institutions as a way in which ruling class ideology could be passed on to the masses and help to control them. In this sense Marx saw religion as a tool of capitalist society, one which acted to preserve the unequal structure of society.
Marx believed that religion promoted the idea that society was organised in the way it was because of the will of God. Society’s unequal hierarchy was the product of ideas about the connection between wealth and righteousness; wealth was a sign of God blessing the ruling class whilst those in poverty were there as a form of punishment for their sins. Furthermore, religion promoted ideas that fit into the ethos of capitalism. Ideas such as individualism, meritocracy and sacrifices made in this life being rewarded in the afterlife. This helped to maintain the motivation to work. Religion also looked to explain the social order: to explain why some people were poor and others were wealthy.
Religion also performed other functions according to Marx. it promoted the idea that inequality was the result of supernatural forces but it also provided an incentive to those not deemed worthy of wealth in this life by the rules set by the religious doctrines that they would receive their rewards in the afterlife. This helped to control the masses from rebelling against their position in society and acted as motivation for the poor to be continued to be exploited through hard work.
Marx believed that religion was an oppressive social force that operated in hugely unequal capitalist societies, such as the UK, France and Germany in the 19th century. The role of religion was to make the vast majority of the population, who lived in poverty and misery, accept their situation. They were told that they
should neither question nor challenge their relationship with a ruling class who kept the best things in life for themselves.
For Marx, religion was a source of social control. Its ideological message was for everyone, rich and poor alike, to accept the world as it was. At the same time, its purpose was to silence conflict: to stop
people questioning why so much poverty existed in a very rich society.
Marx
Called religion ‘the opiate of the masses’ because it ‘dulled the pain of oppression’ with its promise of eternal life (Christianity) or reincarnation into a higher social caste (Hinduism) for those who did their religious duty. What he meant by this was that it acted like a drug, cushioning the workers from the true misery of being exploited in capitalist society.
The impact of religion was to perform a temporary relief from the oppression of capitalism, it gave meaning to their sacrifices and offered hope for future rewards. The temporary effects of comfort achieved with rituals is similar to the temporary comfort achieved by taking opium. This created a false class consciousness.
He also suggested that it was a form of false class consciousness – by embracing false religious ideas people, ail to understand the real causes of their misery and oppression – capitalism and its system of economic exploitation.
Criticisms: He ignores the positive aspects of religion that many functionalists celebrate; the idea of social cohesion, of belonging to something bigger than themselves. Marx also ignores the collectivist nature of some religions and the charity offered by some religions to some of the poorest in society. He’s also been criticised for ignoring the spiritual aspects of religion suggesting that its sole purpose is to maintain the ideology of the ruling class and thus, maintain inequality.
Marx’s focus on religion does not shift from western society and this neglects to explain the aspects of eastern religions; promoting solidarity, rejection of materialism and promotion of collectivist values.
Marx also ignores the ability of individuals to reject the ideology that religion passes down, focusing more on the structural impacts of religion.
Marx
Marx also described religion as the “heart in a heartless world” and understood the appeal of religion in a society than in other respects was dedicated to the buying and selling of commodities and the accumulation of profit by the minority and the increasing poverty of the majority.
Lenin
Marxist
Echoed Marx’s argument by referring to religion as spiritual gin. He argued that the ruling class used religion cynically to create a mystical fog which obscured reality for the working class.
Balibar and Althusser
Marxist
Religion provided the ideological justification for things such as social inequality that flow from a particular set of capitalist economic relationships.
Althusser
Marxist
Argues that religion is a part of the ideological state apparatus. Along with education and the media, it transmits the dominant ideology and maintains false class consciousness.
