Religion Was a Central Topic of Debate free essay sample

The central meaning of the word ‘religion’ is in fact simply the way in which shared beliefs, established regulations, rules, or bonds of obligation among the members of a community’. Based on this definition, religion provides people with a form of rules in which they have to lead their lives by. It also provides them with a sense of unity as the very act of communal worship, which involves expressing their faith in common beliefs and values (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 397), raises their awareness of their similar situations and strengthens the bonds between them (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. ). However, not all social theorists will agree with the definition as their view of religion may differ. Therefore, this will lead me to outline in my essay the views that some classical social theorists held towards religion. Those that I will be focusing on, will me Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. The reason being is, these three theorists have proposed some influential ideas about religion, and analyzing their work will enable me to understand the way in which they viewed religion, and what they thought the purpose of religion was. To do this, I will first provide an explanation for why religion was an important theme for the three. Following that, I will concentrate on Marx and Durkheim, by comparing their definitions of religion and their analysis of its function. All three theorists were sociologist writing in the 19th century, and they knew that religion played a big part in society (Fulcher and Scott, 2007, p. 409). However, religion was an important theme to them for different reasons. For Marx, religion was important to him as he believed that religion was one of the institutions which maintained a capitalist rule (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. 2). He argued that it acted as an ideology which helped hide and legitimize capitalist exploitation (Kirby et al, 2000, p. 440). It leads those who are suffering in false direction, as it hides the true nature of society and the real reasons for why they are suffering (Kirby et al, 2000, p. 440). It was also important to him as it believed it acted as an agent of soc ial control; it kept people in their place. It did this by upholding the existing system of exploitation and reinforcing class relationships (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 400). Religion was an important theme for Durkheim, as he believed religion was the source of everything social. He didn’t think that everything social was religious, but he did believe that social bonds were created through religion. Durkheim showed this by examining the aboriginal religion, which he called Totemism. He argued that within their clans, the symbols that bonded them together and created a sense of unity was predominately a religious symbol (Allan, 2010, p. 112-113). Lastly, religion was an important theme for Weber as he believed it was a conservative force. He argued that societies developed differently partly because of the ‘religious beliefs and ideas about ethical conduct of their members were different’. Therefore, religious beliefs and movements can help produce social change (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. 19). Weber’s idea of social change was based on a protestant religion, called Calvinism. He argued it created the social condition which made the western part of the world ready for a capitalist economic society (Kirby et al, 2000, p. 442). He suggested the work ethic produced by the Calvinists lead to the spirit of capitalism. Calvinism was based on the idea of the elect; which was before birth god had selected those for salvation. As not everyone was part of the elect they believed a sign from god, indicated whether they were part of the elect or not. If an individual worked hard and became rich, this was a sign that they were chosen. This way of life was part of the protestant ethic, ‘a lifestyle based on religious beliefs which lead to a very specific form of social action – economic activity’ (Kirby et al, 2000, p. 442). As stated in my introduction, the theorists that I have chosen to look at in more depth are Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. My reason for choosing these two theorists is because their perspective on religion has its differences and similarities. They both see religion as a conservative force believing it has lead to a little help in promoting social change. They both believe that religion acts as a form of social control, helping to maintain social order. However, while Durkheim would argue that religion is in the best interest of the whole of society, Marx would disagree and argue that religion is used to support a social structure which benefits the rich and harms the poor (Marsh et al, 2009, p. 652), in other words religion upholds ruling class ideology. Therefore for Durkheim religion is based on consensus and for Marx, it’s based on conflict. In terms of defining religion Durkheim holds a substantive approach. By adopting a substantive definition, religion is being defined in terms of supernatural beliefs or things which are defined as sacred (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 396). For Durkheim the key to religious belief is that it relates to things that society’s members define as sacred (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. 5). As you will see in his definition there is no mention of a supernatural or God as he argues the notion of a God cannot be included in the definitions. This is because there are many belief systems that are considered as a religion, but does not require the concept of a God (Allan, 2010, p. 116). Durkheim defines religion in terms of the sacred and the profane, he argues that all societies divide the world into two categories, and religion is based upon this division (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 396). He therefore defines religion as ‘a unified system of beliefs and practices related to scared things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere them’ (Marsh et al, 2009, p. 56). He may have used the term ‘Church’, but his definition was intended to apply beyond Christianity (Marsh et al, 2009, p. 656). In order for Durkheim to determine the role that religion played in society, he approached religion from an analysis of its primitive form (Fulcher and Scott, 2007, p. 410), by studying the r eligion of the Australian Aborigines, which he called Totemism. He argued that the people within the aborigine society were divided into several clans; a clan was like an extended family, whose members shared various duties and obligations. For example all the clans had rules of exogamy – one was marrying members within your own clan was prohibited (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008 396). Within each clan there was a strong basis of social solidarity, as the clan felt an attachment to one another (Fulcher and Scott, 2007, p. 410). Each clan identified themselves with a particular animal or plant, this was their emblem or, which Durkheim called it a totem, and it symbolized their clam (Fulcher and Scott, 2007, p. 410). The totem is regarded as sacred, so it is then represented by drawings made on wood and stone. The drawings made are called churingas, and churingas are at least sacred as the species they represent (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 397. This led Durkheim to argue ‘sacredness is not a function of the object, sacredness is something is something that is placed upon the object’ (Allan, 2010, p. 116). So in relation to the totem, Durkheim states that the totem as itself has no importance, as it is just an object, but it is however a material expression of something else. The totem is the outward form of something seen as divine or highly important, this can be referred to as a god. Secondly it is the symbol of the clan or society, as it is a sign of their identity (Marsh et al, 2009, p. 656) From this distinction, Durkheim wondered isn’t these two things connected. He then carried on to say ‘if the totem is the symbol of both the god and the society, is this not because the god and the society are the same, (Durkheim, 1912/1995 cited in Allan, 2010, p. 118). Therefore he suggested by worshipping God, people are actually worshiping society. Durkheim strongly believed that without the shared ideas and moral beliefs that formed the collective science social life was impossible. If they ceased to exist in society would be corrupt, as there would be no social order, no social solidarity or no social control. Therefore society would not survive (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 392). From this Durkheim argued that religion acted as an agent which reinforced the collective sense. He also carried on to say, that by worshipping society, it provided strength for the moral beliefs and values that formed the basis of social life, and by defining them as sacred religion provided greater power and direct human actions (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, 397). He also claims that that in worshipping society people is now recognizing the importance of the social group (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 397), and realize as individuals they are insignificant, but as a group they are strong. In this respect religion creates unity and therefore a function of religion of religion is to strengthen social solidarity (Pilkington, et al, 2008, p. 7) In contrast to Durkheim’s view on religion, Marx held a more negative stance; his view is based on conflict. This is because he saw a basic conflict of interest between two classes, which where the bourgeoisies and the proletariats (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. 2). Marx’s defines religion as an ‘instrument of dominance and oppression which keeps the proletariats in its place’ (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. 12). He then carries on to say that religion is an illusion which is thought, by the proletariats, to ease the pain caused by exploitation and oppression (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 399). In terms of the role that religion plays in society; Marx argued that religion lead people into false direction as the ‘hope and solutions it promises are all false illusions’. Therefore religion acts as an ideology, which helps maintain the ruling class power. It conceals and disguises the true nature of reality. In a way which benefits the ruling class (Pilkington et al, 2008, p. 13). With religion being am an ideology, it blinds people from the oppression of the class system. In part this is what Marx means when he say religion is ‘the opium of the people’ (Allan, 2010, p. 89). He argues that religion acts as an opiate which dulls the pain brought up oppression (Haralambos and Holborn 2008, p. 399). Marx says ‘religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people’ (Marx and Engels 1955 cited in Marsh et al 2009, p. 653) Ways in which religion dulls the pain of oppression; is that it promises eternal life in heaven after death, it justifies people poverty, by saying they will be rewarded with riches for their suffering in the afterlife, and it can also justify the social order and a person position within society (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 00). Form Marx’s viewpoint religion doesn’t just suppress the effects of oppression; it is also a tool of oppression. It acts as an agent of social control by maintaining the ‘existing system of exploitation and reinforcing class relationships’ In other words it keeps people in their place, which promotes social order. It stops those in the subject class from rebelling. Marx also argues that the ruling class takes on religious beliefs to justify their position within society to themselves and others (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008, p. 00). To conclude you can see that regardless of the outcome all three theorists believed that religion played a major part in society. However the only that believed that religion will not be completely wiped out by modern science was Durkheim. Like Comte, Durkheim saw that traditional religions will no longer exists in society. However he did believe that new forms of religion will evolve which were more compatible with scientific knowledge, and with the structure of complex advanced ocieties this new idea of religion that Durkheim argued will replace traditional religions is based around the idea of individualism (Fulcher and Scott, 2007, p. 409, 411) Marx he believed the rise in modern science meant the disappearance of traditional religions, as the supernatural aspects of religious beliefs were incompatible with the modern science knowledge. This claim is linked to the idea of secularization of modern society. Weber however believed that religion would completely disappear; this meant that individual will then be no longer to make any sense of their lives (Fulcher and Scott, 2007, p. 09). One question we could ask is that has the role of religion in society changed? Do these theories of religion still apply to society? Whether it has changed or not, religion still plays a major part in society as new for m of religion have evolved over time, such as scientology. Bibliography Allan, K (2010), Explorations in Classical Social Theory. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif, London: Pine Forge Fulcher, J. and Scott, J (2007), Sociology. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Haralambos, M. nd Holborn, S (2008), Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Seventh Edition. London: Collins Marsh, I. Keating, M. Punch, S. and Harden, J. (2009), Sociology: Making sense of society. Fourth Edition. Harlow: Longman Pilkington, A. Taylor, P and Yeo, A. (2008) Sociology in Focus. Forth Edition. Pearson Education Limited Kirby, M. Kidd, W. Koubel, F. Barter, J. Hope, T. Kirton, A. Madry, N. Manning, P. Triggs, K. (2000) Sociology in Perspective. First Edition. Heinemann Educational