Talcott Parsons also supports the idea of religion bringing social solidarity. He believed that in times of crisis looking towards religion for answers that could not be found elsewhere was immensely comforting, and often the main reason that individuals turn to religion. One example of this is the way in which places of worship are often placed in areas of poverty. This suggests that those living in these areas feel the need to turn to religion to help comfort them through the difficult times. This idea however links in with Weber’s idea of the ‘Theodicy of disprivilege. This is the view that religion appeals to the poor by giving them the hope of earning a better life for after they die whilst on earth.
In connection with this theodicy functionalist’s and Marxist’s appear to find some common group when discussing religion. Religion is seen by Karl Marx as the ‘opium of the people’. Marx is basically suggesting that religion acts as a hallucinatory drug, creating a false illusion that we live in a just society, encouraging people to be thankful of the positive that they have been given in live. Marx explains this theory in two ways. Firstly the way he believes religion is often trying to make society believe that the position of the rich and the poor is simply the ‘will of God’ and so should be respected. A particularly strong example of this is in Hinduism where the Indian Caste System is followed, and the social position into which you are born in is the one you are destined to remain in, based upon the belief that your social status is destined by the God’s alone. Secondly, Marx believes that religion encourages believers to put off the pursuit of happiness whilst on earth and to work in accordance with the belief that they will be rewarded in heaven.
Otto Maduro is a modern Neo-Marxist who believes that is actually possible for religion to play a larger role in the political struggles of the oppressed classes, Maduro has studied developing countries where religion is a dominating part of society, he saw that social liberation cannot take place unless change within the churches took place. This is the idea of Liberation Theology, where the oppressed take their problems to the church as then the church can support them in this by bringing about a change. This theology supports Gramsci through the idea that religion is able to support the rights of the working classes and illustrate where they actually stand within society.
Emile Durkheim however, believed that in worshipping religion, it is actually society that is being worshipped. When talking about Aboriginal religion, Durkheim concluded that “primitive man comes to view society as something sacred because he is utterly dependent upon it.” This is a particularly interesting stance of religion and relates to the way in which Aboriginal societies would each make their own totem pole, used to worship their Aboriginal God. Durkheim believed that the Totems were also regarded as something entirely sacred, and were in fact a means of worshiping their society also.
Durkheim’s idea of religion being a means of worshipping society is also strongly linked to Bellah’s concept of civil religion. Bellah drew upon Parson and Durkheim’s work forming this concept. From Durkheim’s work into the idea that ‘sacred; beliefs and practices, Bellah determined that in America, despite the social divides of the North and the South, it’s unity overall was due to civil religion or a belief in Americanism. It may be said that this kind of faith does not require any belief in a supernatural existence, but Bellah argues that it does, through the way in which both God and Americanism walk hand in hand. Bellah’s uses the example of the American presidents who have always pledged allegiance to God, and have always ended each public speech with the works ‘God Bless you and God bless America.’ Bellah suggests that this ‘God’ they speak of is not actually the God of Catholicism for example, but that it is in fact ‘America’s God’. There is a strong link between the states that are overly patriotic, and the states that are particularly religious, and Bellah believes that this link is by no means a coincidence. Looking at the present day American political election candidates, both Sarah Palin, the social conservative, and John McCain the vice presidential candidate, have very strong evangelical beliefs with specific regard to abortion and gay rights. This is a crucial topic in American politics and it will be a very evident factor in the outcome of the elections, thus proving just how religious the country is when connecting religion and politics.
When looking at Civil Religion in the UK, Gerald Parsons (2002) claimed that the ‘most widespread and visible expression of Britain’s Civil Religion’ is probably the events and ceremonies surrounding Remembrance Sunday. Parsons explains that as the televised scene at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, London in which the Royal Family lead the nation is remembering the lives of those lost as a result of war and conflict, the nation does appear to be united. The monarchy does seem to be leading this small show of Civil Religion. James Beckford says he recognises that the nation does come together for religious rituals such as Princess Diana’s Funeral, but he also comments that these occasions cannot compensate for the deep social divisions in the UK, and that if the UK does have civil religion, it is both sparse, and even then it is very weak.
In reflection upon this idea of Civil Religion, it would appear that Marxist’s hold no room in their ideologies of alienation and how religion separates the working and ruling classes, for the functionalist view that religion brings civilization together. Marxist’s seem to only support the view that religion is appealing to the oppressed as it provided hope and comfort, not that it creates social solidarity.
Overall functionalism holds the most supported view of religion, due to the fact that it considers the majority of factors that affect the relevance of religion in our post-modern society. Over the years, religion has adapted a great amount, but with this functional views have also improved and adapted. As Durkheim talks about the ‘cult of man’ functionalists see society as becoming far more individualistic, and that in the future we will live in a far more complex society with a rapidly declining collective conscience.
Living in such a diverse and fragmented society, it is possible that when given the choice, as a society we may chose not to participate in a common religion, but to embrace the fact that as Bruce suggests, we live in a consumerist society in which we are free to ‘pick and choose’ religion. However, despite this, even in this post-modern society in which we live, religion is still an evident part of life for many. For instance, Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, and denominations of the Christian faith such as the Salvation Army still have a great number of followers, whose work benefits many of disprivileged individuals across Britain. In conclusion, I believe that it is clear that in contemporary society, religion is about choice, choice as to whether or not you want to believe in a faith. In a society where free will is so liberally carried out, I believe that there is no reason as to why religion should not be seen as functional for its believers.
by
applesmith (student)
