Theories of Religion Flashcards
Substantive definitions
content or substance of religious belief
Max Weber (1905) defines religion as belief in a superior or supernatural power that is above nature and cannot be explained scientifically
Substantive definitions are exclusive - they draw a clear line between religious and non-religious beliefs
a set of beliefs must include belief in God or the supernatural.
Substantive definitions
Evalution
leaves no room for beliefs and practices that perform similar functions to religion but do not involve belief in God. Substantive definitions are also accused of Western bias because they exclude religions such as Buddhism, which do not have the Western idea of a god.
Functional definitions
Rather than defining religion in terms of specific kinds of belief, functional definitions define it in terms of the social or psychological functions it performs for individuals or society. Emile Durkheim (1915) defines religion in terms of the contribution it makes to social integration, rather than any specific belief in God or the supernatural.
Yinger (1970) identifies functions that religion performs for individuals, such as answering ‘ultimate questions’ about the meaning of life and what happens when we die.
Functional definitions
Evaluation
An advantage of functional definitions is that they are inclusive - allowing us to include a wide range of beliefs and practices that perform functions such as integration.
Also, since they do not specify belief in god or the supernatural, there is no bias against non-Western religions such as Buddhism. However, just because an institution helps integrate individuals into groups, this does not make it a religion. For example, collective chanting at football matches might give individuals a sense of integration, but this doesn’t mean it is a religion.
Constructionist definitions
Social constructionists take an interpretivist approach that focuses on how members of society themselves define religion. They argue that it is not possible to produce a single universal definition of religion to cover all cases, since in reality different individuals and groups mean very different things by ‘religion’.
Social constructionists are interested in how definitions of religion are constructed, challenged and fought over. For example, Alan Aldridge (2013) shows how, for its followers, Scientology is a religion, whereas several governments have denied it legal status as a religion and sought to ban it. This shows that definitions of religion can be contested and are influenced by who has power to define the situation Social constructionists do not assume that religion always involves a belief in God or the supernatural, or that it performs similar functions for everyone in all societies.
Constructionist definitions
Evaluation
Their approach allows them to get close to the meanings people themselves give to religion. However, this makes it impossible to generalise about the nature of religion, since people may have widely differing views about what counts as a religion.
Functionalist theories of religion
Durkheim on religion
For functionalists, religious institutions play a central part in creating and maintaining value consensus, order and solidarity. The first functionalist to develop this idea was Emile Durkheim (1858-1917).
Functionalist theories of religion
The sacred and the profane
For Durkheim (1915; 1962), the key feature of religion was a fundamental distinction between the sacred and the profane found in all religions. The sacred are things set apart and forbidden, that inspire feelings of awe, fear and wonder, and are surrounded by taboos and prohibitions.
By contrast, the profane are things that have no special significance - things that are ordinary and mundane.
Furthermore, a religion is never simply a set of beliefs. It also involves definite rituals or practices in relation to the sacred, and these rituals are collective - performed by social groups.
The fact that sacred things evoke such powerful feelings in believers indicates to Durkheim that this is because they are symbols representing something of great power. In his view, this thing can only be society itself, since society is the only thing powerful enough to command such feelings. When they worship the sacred symbols, therefore, people are worshipping society itself. For Durkheim, although sacred symbols vary from religion to religion, they all perform the essential function of uniting believers into a single moral community.
Functionalist theories of religion
Totemism
Durkheim believed that the essence of all religion could be found by studying its simplest form, in the simplest type of society - clan society. For this reason, he used studies of the Arunta, an Aboriginal Australian tribe with a clan system.
Arunta clans consist of bands of kin who come together periodically to perform rituals involving worship of a sacred totem. The totem is the clan’s emblem, such as an animal or plant that symbolises the clan’s origins and identity. The shared totemic rituals venerating it serve to reinforce the group’s solidarity and sense of belonging
For Durkheim, when clan members worship their totemic animal, they are in reality worshipping society - even though they themselves are not aware of this fact. The totem inspires feelings of awe in the clans members precisely because it represents the power of the group on which the indvidual is utterly dependent
Functionalist theories of religion
The collective conscience
In Durkheim’s view, the sacred symbols represent society’s collective conscience or consciousness (the french word
‘conscience means both conscience and consciousness)
The collective conscience is the shared norms, values, beliefs and knowledge that make social life and cooperation between individuals possible - without these. society would disintegrate.
For Durkheim, regular shared religious rituals reinforce the collective conscience and maintain social integration.
Participating in shared rituals binds individuals together, reminding them that they are part of a single moral community to which they owe their loyalty. Such rituals also remind the individual of the power of society - without which they themselves are nothing, and to which they owe everything.
In this sense, religion also performs an important function for the individual. By making us feel part of something greater than ourselves, religion reinvigorates and strengthens us to face life’s trials and motivates us to overcome obstacles that would otherwise defeat us.
Functionalist theories of religion
Cognitive functions of religion
Durkheim sees religion not only as the source of social solidarity, but also of our intellectual or cognitive capacities
- our ability to reason and think conceptually. For example, in order to think at all, we need categories such as time, space, cause, substance, number etc (try thinking of an event that had no cause and that occurred outside time and space, for example). And secondly, in order to share our thoughts, we need to use the same categories as others.
In Durkheim’s view, religion is the origin of the concepts and categories we need for reasoning, understanding the world and communicating. In their book Primitive Classification, Durkheim and Marcel Mauss (1903; 2009) argue that religion provides basic categories such as time, space and causation - for example, with ideas about a creator bringing the world into being at the beginning of time. Similarly, the division of tribes into clans gives humans their first notion of classification. Thus for Durkheim, religion is the origin of human thought, reason and science.
Criticisms of Durkheim on religion
The evidence on totemism is unsound. Worsley (1956) notes that there is no sharp division between the sacred and the profane, and that different clans share the same totems. And even if Durkheim is right about totemism, this does not prove that he has discovered the essence of all other religions. Durkheim’s theory may apply better to small-scale societies with a single religion. It is harder to apply it to large-scale societies, where two or more religious communities may be in conflict. His theory may explain social integration within communities, but not the conflicts between them.
Similarly, postmodernists such as Stepan Mestrovic
(2011) argue that Durkheim’s ideas cannot be applied to contemporary society, because increasing diversity has fragmented the collective conscience, so there is no longer a single shared value system for religion to reinforce.
Functionalist theories of religion
Psychological functions
Bronislaw Malinowski (1954) agrees with Durkheim that religion promotes solidarity. However, in his view, it does so by performing psychological functions for individuals, helping them cope with emotional stress that would undermine social solidarity. Malinowski identifies two types of situation in which religion performs this role:
1 Where the outcome is important but is uncontrollable and thus uncertain In his study of the Trobriand Islanders of the Western Pacific, Malinowski contrasts fishing in the lagoon and fishing in the ocean.
* Lagoon fishing is safe and uses the predictable and successful method of poisoning. When the islanders fish in the lagoon, there is no ritual.
* Ocean fishing is dangerous and uncertain, and is always accompanied by ‘canoe magic’ - rituals to ensure a safe and successful expedition. This gives people a sense of control, which eases tension, gives them confidence to undertake hazardous tasks and reinforces group solidarity. He sees ritual serving as a
‘god of the gaps’ - it fills the gaps in human beings’ control over the world, such as being unable to control the outcome of a fishing trip.
2 At times of life crises Events such as birth, puberty, marriage and especially death mark major and disruptive changes in social groups. Religion helps to minimise disruption. For example, the funeral rituals reinforce a feeling of solidarity among the survivors, while the notion of immortality gives comfort to the bereaved by denying the fact of death. In fact, Malinowski argues that death is the main reason for the existence of religious belief
Functionalist theories of religion
Parsons: values and meaning
Like Malinowski, Talcott Parsons (1967) sees religion helping individuals to cope with unforeseen events and uncontrollable outcomes. In addition, Parsons identifies two other essential functions that religion performs in modern society.
* It creates and legitimates society’s central values.
* It is the primary source of meaning.
Religion creates and legitimates society’s basic norms and values by sacralising them (making them sacred). Thus in the USA, Protestantism has sacralised the core American values of individualism, meritocracy and self-discipline. This serves to promote value consensus and thus social stability.
Religion also provides a source of meaning. In particular, it answers ‘ultimate’ questions about the human condition, such as why the good suffer and why some die young. Such events defy our sense of justice and make life appear meaningless, and this may undermine our commitment to society’s values.
Religion provides answers to such questions, for example by explaining suffering as a test of faith that will be rewarded in heaven. By doing so, religion enables people to adjust to adverse events or circumstances and helps maintain stability.
Functionalist theories of religion
Civil religion
Neofunctionalist
Like Parsons, Robert Bellah (1991; 2013) is interested in how religion unifies society, especially a multi-faith society like America. What unifies American society is an overarching civil religion - a belief system that attaches sacred qualities to society itself. In the American case, civil religion is a faith in Americanism or ‘the American way of life’
Bellah argues that civil religion integrates society in a way that America’s many different churches and denominations cannot.
While none of these can claim the loyalty of all Americans, civil religion can. American civil religion involves loyalty to the nation-state and a belief in God, both of which are equated with being a true American. It is expressed in various rituals, symbols and beliefs; such as the pledge of allegiance to the flag, singing the national anthem, the Lincoln Memorial, and phrases such as ‘One nation under God’. However, this is not a specifically Catholic, Protestant or Jewish God, but rather an ‘American’ God. It sacralises the American way of life and binds together Americans from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds.
Functionalist theories of religion
Functional alternatives
Functional alternatives or functional equivalents to religion are non-religious beliefs and practices that perform functions similar to those of organised religion, such as reinforcing shared values or maintaining social cohesion.
For example, although in America civil religion involves a belief in God, Bellah argues that this doesn’t have to be the case. Some other belief system could perform the same functions. For example, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had secular (non-religious) political beliefs and rituals around which they sought to unite society.
However, the problem with the idea of functional alternatives is the same as with functional definitions of religion that we saw earlier. That is, it ignores what makes religion distinctive and different - namely, its belief in the supernatural.
Evaluation of functionalism
Functionalism emphasises the social nature of religion and the positive functions it performs, but it neglects negative aspects, such as religion as a source of oppression of the poor or women.
It ignores religion as a source of division and conflict, especially in complex modern societies where there is more than one religion - e.g. Northern Ireland. Where there is religious pluralism (many religions), it is hard to see how it can unite people and promote integration.
The idea of civil religion overcomes this problem to some extent, by arguing that societies may still have an overarching belief system shared by all, but is this really religion - especially if it is not based on belief in the supernatural?
Marxist theories of religion:
Religion as ideology
For Marx, ideology is a belief system that distorts people’s perception of reality in ways that serve the interests of the ruling class. He argues that the class that controls economic production also controls the production and distribution of ideas in society, through institutions such as the church, the education system and the media.
In Marx’s view, religion operates as an ideological weapon used by the ruling class to legitimate (justify) the suffering of the poor as something inevitable and god-given. Religion misleads the poor into believing that their suffering is virtuous and that they will be favoured in the afterlife. For example, according to Christianity, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Such ideas create a false consciousness - a distorted view of reality that prevents the poor from acting to change their situation.
Similarly, Lenin (1870-1924) describes religion as ‘spiritual gin”
- an intoxicant doled out to the masses by the ruling class to confuse them and keep them in their place. In Lenin’s view, the ruling class use religion cynically to manipulate the masses and keep them from attempting to overthrow the ruling class by creating a ‘mystical fog’ that obscures reality.
Religion also legitimates the power and privilege of the dominant class by making their position appear to be divinely ordained. For example, the 16’h century idea of the Divine Right of Kings was the belief that the king is God’s representative on earth and is owed total obedience.
Disobedience is not just illegal, but a sinful challenge to God’s authority
Marxist theories of religion:
Religion and alienation
Marx (1844) also sees religion as the product of alienation. Alienation involves becoming separated from or losing control over something that one has produced or created. Alienation exists in all class societies, but it is more extreme under capitalism. Under capitalism, workers are alienated because they do not own what they produce and have no control over the production process, and thus no freedom to express their true nature as creative beings. Alienation reaches a peak with the detailed division of labour in the capitalist factory, where the worker endlessly repeats the same minute task, devoid of all meaning or skill.
In these dehumanising conditions, the exploited turn to religion as a form of consolation. As Marx puts it, religion:
‘is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, the spirit of a spiritless situation!’ Religion acts as an opiate to dull the pain of exploitation.
But just as opium masks pain rather than treating its cause, so religion masks the underlying problem of exploitation that creates the need for it. Because religion is a distorted view of the world, it can offer no solution to earthly misery.
Instead, its promises of the afterlife create an illusory happiness that distracts attention from the true source of the suffering, namely capitalism.
Thus, Marx sees religion as the product of alienation. It arises out of suffering and acts as a consolation for it, but fails to deal with its cause, namely class exploitation.
Religion also acts as an ideology that legitimates both the suffering of the poor and the privileges of the ruling class.
Marxist theories of religion:
Evaluation
- Marx shows how religion may be a tool of oppression that masks exploitation and creates false consciousness.
However, he ignores positive functions of religion, such as psychological adjustment to misfortune. Neo-Marxists see certain forms of religion as assisting not hindering the development of class consciousness (see Topic 2). - Some Marxists, such as Althusser (1971), reject the concept of alienation as unscientific and based on a romantic idea that human beings have a ‘true self’. This would make the concept an inadequate basis for a theory of religion.
Religion does not necessarily function effectively as an ideology to control the population. For example, Abercrombie, Hill and Turner (2015) argue that in pre-capitalist society, while Christianity was a major element of ruling-class ideology, it had only limited impact on the peasantry.
Feminist theories of religion
Feminists see society as patriarchal - that is, based on male domination. Many feminists regard religion as a patriarchal institution that reflects and perpetuates this inequality.
Religious beliefs function as a patriarchal ideology that legitimates female subordination.
Feminist theories of religion
Evidence of patriarchy
* Religious organisations
- Religious organisations are mainly male-dominated despite the fact that women often participate more than men in these organisations. For example, Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism forbid women to become priests. Karen Armstrong (1993) sees exclusion from the priesthood as evidence of women’s marginalisation.
Woodhead (2002) argues that the exclusion of women from the Catholic priesthood is evidence of the Church’s deep unease about the emancipation of women generally.
Feminist theories of religion
Evidence of patriarchy
* Places of worship
- Places of worship often segregate the sexes and marginalise women, for example seating them behind screens while the men occupy the central and more sacred spaces. Women’s participation may be restricted, for example not being allowed to preach or to read from sacred texts. Taboos that regard menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth as polluting may also prevent participation.
For example, in Islam, menstruating women are not allowed to physically touch the Qur’an. Jean Holm (2001) describes this as the devaluation of women in religion.
Feminist theories of religion
Evidence of patriarchy
* Sacred texts
- Sacred texts largely feature the doings of male gods, prophets etc, and are usually written and interpreted by men. Stories often reflect anti-female stereotypes, such as that of Eve who, in the Judaeo-Christian story of Genesis, caused humanity’s fall from grace and expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Feminist theories of religion
Evidence of patriarchy
Religious laws
Religious laws and customs may give women fewer rights than men, for example in access to divorce, how many spouses they may marry, decision making, dress codes etc. Religious influences on cultural norms may also lead to unequal treatment, such as genital mutilation or punishments for sexual transgressions. Many religions legitimate and regulate women’s traditional domestic and reproductive role. For example, the Catholic Church bans abortion and artificial contraception.
However, feminists argue that women have not always been subordinate to men within religion. Karen Armstrong (1993)
argues that
Karen Armstrong (1993)
argues that early religions often placed women at the centre. For example, earth mother goddesses, fertility cults and female priesthoods were found throughout the Middle East until about 6,000 years ago. However, from about 4,000 years ago, the rise of monotheistic religions saw the establishment of a single, all-powerful male God, such as the Hebrews’ Jehovah, and male prophets such as Abraham/ Ibrahim, the first prophet of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
While religion may be used to oppress women, Nawal El Saadawi (1980) argues that it is not the direct cause of their subordination.
Rather, this is the result of patriarchal forms of society coming into existence in the last few thousand years. However, once in existence, patriarchy began to influence and re-shape religion. For example, men reinterpreted religious beliefs in ways that favoured patriarchy. Thus religion now contributes to women’s oppression. Like Armstrong, El Saadawi sees the rise of monotheism as legitimating the power of men over women.
Religious forms of feminism
Linda Woodhead (2009) criticises feminist explanations that simply equate religion with patriarchy and the oppression of women. While accepting that much traditional religion is patriarchal, she emphasises that this is not true of all religion. She argues that there are ‘religious forms of feminism’ - ways in which women use religion to gain greater freedom and respect.
Religious Forms of Feminism: Woodhead uses the example of the hijab or veil worn by many Muslim women. While Western feminists tend to see it as a symbol of oppression, to the wearer it may be a means of liberation. According to Sophie Gilliat-Ray (2010),
some young British Muslim women choose to wear the hijab in order to gain parental approval to enter further education and especially employment, where Muslim women’s presence has traditionally been problematic. For them, the hijab is a symbol of liberation that allows them to enter the public sphere without being condemned as immodest.
Women also use religion to gain status and respect for their roles within the private sphere of home and family.
For example, as Elisabeth Brusco (1995; 2012) found in Colombia,
belonging to a Pentecostal group can be empowering for some women. Despite the strong belief in traditional gender roles that such groups hold, women are able to use religion to increase their power and influence. For example, a strongly held belief among Pentecostals is that men should respect women. This gives women power to influence men’s behaviour by insisting that they practise what they preach and refrain from ‘macho’ behaviour. Similarly, women make use of activities linked to the church, such as Bible study groups, to share experiences and find support.
Feminist theories of religion
Piety movements
Rachel Rinaldo (2010) sees this pattern as typical of ‘piety movements’. These are conservative movements that support traditional teachings about women’s role, modest dress, prayer and Bible study. They include Pentecostal and evangelical groups, and some forms of non-Christian religions.
Like Brusco and Woodhead, Rinaldo argues that even within conservative religions, women may sometimes find ways to further their own interests. However, she notes that** it is middle-class urban women who are most likely to join piety movements. These women may already have other resources, such as education and income, with which to pursue their goals.**
Feminist theories of religion
Liberal Protestant organisations
such as the Quakers and the Unitarians, are often committed to gender equality and women play leading roles. For example, a third of Unitarian ministers are female. The Church of England, the official state church in England, has had female priests since 1994 and female bishops since 2015. A third of its priests are female.
