However, Marxists argued that religion is an illusion which eases the pain produced by exploitation. In Marx’s words ‘Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people’. Like Marxists, feminists argue that religion is a source of domination and oppression. However, unlike Marxism, they see religion as a product of patriarchy, rather than capitalism. They argue that religion is patriarchal in that women are exploited by men and seen as subordinate. Feminist sociologists are interested in how women have become subservient and how religion has promoted patriarchy. This view is not just shared by only female feminist sociologists. Anthony Giddens argues that; “The Christians religion is a resolutely male affair in its symbolism as well as its hierarchy. While Mary, the mother of Jesus may sometimes be treated as if she has divine qualities, God is the father, a male figure, and Jesus took the human shape of a man.
Weber believed that religion was a force for change and developed a theory that Protestantism was responsible for capitalism developing in this work ‘The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism’. Weber believed that there was a relationship between religious belief and the ethos of capitalism.
Calvinism was a 17th century protestant religion based on the works of John Calvin. They believed in pro-destination but were not sure that they were part of the ‘elect destined for heaven – this led to a ‘salvation panic’. Calvinism devoted them selves to business because they were treated as social outcasts. They were excluded from holding public office etc.
Secularisation is the process whereby religious believes, practises and institutions lose social significance. “Suggested by Brian Wilson (1966), argued whether or not secularisation is occurring, or has occurred, in our society today. In today’s society religion has less importance in peoples lives. Wilson also argues that the competition between religious undermines their credibility. ‘How Religious are we? Points out how except for occasional ancient ceremony, such as coronation – the church has ceased preside over national life.
August Comte (1986; First published 1830-42), the French functionalist sociologist, believed that human history passed through three stages. Each stage was characterized by a different set of intellectual beliefs:
- In the first stage, theological stage, religion and superstitious beliefs would be dominant.
- These would be weakening a society passed into the second, metaphysical stage, during which is philosophy.
- Religious beliefs would disappear altogether in the final, positive stage, in which science alone would dominate human thinking and direct behaviour.
Parsons and Martin argue that in a structurally differentiated society religious institutions may become more specialised, but this does not mean less important.
METHODOLOGY
Based on my topic, I have decided to choose unstructured interview as my main method and am going to use quantitative data, which would help me understand the meanings of peoples view and responses as it is relevant to my aim. I would also compare the answers that I am given in order to see how religion affects society.
Unlike questionnaire where I cannot really find out more about the interviewee because the answers are likely to be determined and similar and it’s going to be straight forward. I prefer to use interview to find out about my research rather than questionnaire or all the other methods. This is because with interview I would be able to get an in depth detail about what I want to find out and also it would give me the opportunity to learn about peoples believes from different faiths and backgrounds. Also I prefer it because it would make my research more valid and reliable, as I would be talking to the person directly. This would give me the advantage to be able to read their body language in order for me to know if the information that is given is the truth.
The possible problem that could happen during this interview is that I could not be given reliable information if the interviewee is sitting right next to me, they might be nervous, or they may lie about some of the answers that they give, because they would be nervous and then feel that the answers that they are giving is the wrong. I could be also tempted to give in a bit of my opinion during the times of my interview to just help the interviewee with the questions or simply to give me the answers that I would like to hear, even though am not supposed to.
The reason why I choose this method is because; I want to have a valid data which is factual and true. During my interview I am going to be asking questions such as: ‘How important to think religion is in society today?’ and ‘What do you think the world religion means?’ this would help me to know more about different people from different backgrounds views about religion. This would therefore help me gain more knowledge about my aim.
Before my interview I am going to do a small study conducted in advance of a large one, to test the possibility of the large study. This is going to help me identify the advantages and disadvantages, of my study and my interview questions and help me choose the right location for my study. Also it is going to help me decide if unstructured interview is good for my study and if I am actually going to be able to use quantitative data for my results.
For my real interview I am going to interview 10 people both male and females 5 each form different age groups. I am also going to pick different people from different religions (such as: Christians and Muslims) and also use people from different cultures in South West London. The age group that I am going to be focusing on is between the age of 15-26 and 40-70. I choose these different age groups because I know that I would receive different answers from these two different age groups. The 40-70 are going to give me more detailed answers as they have more experience than the younger once and also the younger once are going to give me answers based on what they know in this modern society. My interview would take place in a private area where the interviewee has no connections with the people they know else they would not give me an honest answers, s I felt that it is better to move from the people you know in order to be more confident about what you say.
During my pilot interview I realized that the interview developed very naturally as I allowed the interviewee to talk freely, but then I realised that they were leading to a particular topic so I had to change my questions around a little bit. These interviews really help because questions that I thought were too personal to ask, the answers were given. My interview was not as successful as I would have liked it to go. This was because after my interview was over I realised that I had loads of information and it was really hard for me to come in conclusion of what I wanted.
EVIDENCE
My aim was to find out about ‘Is Religion important to people today in society’. To do this I picked 10 people whom I would interview, 5 males and 5 females, between the ages 15-26 and 40-70 years old. I am going to pick my sample from the people I know, and don’t have enough contact with them. This is because I would know that they don’t know many about my opinions so I am less likely to influence them on the kinds of things that I want them to talk about with me. I am going to conduct the interview at a quite place where the interviewee would feel free to tell me their opinions
Religious beliefs
My first question was; What does Religion mean to you? When I asked this question I realised that all of my interviewees took some time to think about exactly what they are saying because they felt that what they were saying was not right. But the answers I got from most of them was, religion is about faith practices by a group of people. During my second
Evaluation-1119 words
The problems that I faced after my interview was over were that at the end, I didn’t know whether these heaps of information that I found out were valid or reliable. This was hard because I didn’t know whether the interview, could lie to make themselves look good and also just to make me finish my study and not give me valid answers. I thought most of these mistakes came because some of my interviews were done in a rush and there could have been a possibility that most of my interviews did not even think about the questions they were being asked and then gave a straight answers. So because of these results I prepared another interview questions, but used a more leading questions which would reduce the lack of reliability and validity. This time they were structured to see if the answers that I received would be a bit similar to what I have done first. I also used the structured interview because I wanted to help the interview with some little answers just in case they might not know what I am talking about. So after my second interviews I collected the information and then put them together. But it was difficult for me to gather all the information I had and also pick out necessary information.
After putting together and analyzing my results, I realized some minor problems with my results. This could have been because of my two different interviews. One of the problems which affected my results might have been the invalid I was given in my first interviews and also the fact that I had to change
