Produce an essay identifying the different sociological approaches to secularisation with reference to Marxism, Webber and Durkheim.

Sociology Secularisation

In my assignment I will be looking at secularisation and the different sociological explanations and theories, from sociologist such as Marx, Webber, Durkheim and Wilson. I will then look at how these different views compare and differ with one another.

It can be seen that an on-going debate by sociologists is the disagreement whether religion encourages or inhibits social change. Most sociologists agree that as society changes and evolves so will changes to religion. However, many have claimed that this change will lead to the disappearance of religion altogether. It has been thought since the early 19th century that industrialization and the growth of scientific knowledge, would lead to the decline of religion, known as secularisation.

Emile Durkheim a functionalist did not see religion as hopeless. He looked more at its function within society. He saw religion as maintaining social cohesion, a main part of society where religion brought people together. However, he anticipated that religion was on the decline of social significance. This is because in an industrial society where there was a highly specialised division of labour, religion would lose a part of its power for integrating society (Holborn, 2009).

This is where Durkheim believed the Education System would replace the religions part of social solidarity, instead of religious rituals. The Education System can place religion where it wants on the time table, not religion dictating to the Education System. This in itself shows how it would lead to a reduction in religion. If religion is given less time in people’s everyday life, whereas before, in pre-industrial society people would spend as long as they needed practicing and reading religious literature. The average 9-5 job and school timetable does not allow this.

Durkheim, however, did not believe religion is condemned. He saw religion as maintaining social cohesion, transforming from a traditional religion into a new form of religion. By looking over the 19th and 20th century he saw a huge social change by industrialisation and urbanisation as a threat to religion. This change led to the breakup of small communities and in some places ones which were isolated (could be classed as back in time). Industrialisation was destruction to the norms which dictated to previous behaviour. This resulted in a collapse of social solidarity and collective consciousness. This is because the integration of close knit communities, shared norms and values, was religions ‘organ’ to survive, without this its future is uncertain (school, 2011).

Durkheim predicted that religion would be re-positioned to the corner of people’s lives and marginalized through industrialisation. This could be due to the fact businesses are structured for profits and not the workers lives. He believed religion would be forced to be a private matter for people, leading to privatization. On the other hand he did not see the decline of religion as an irreversible trend; he saw that all societies must have some sort of sacred symbols and communal ritual if they are to continue. This may show how even though Durkheim believed religion would become less main-stream in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Durkheim’s outlook on religion, that it won’t disappear it will just change shape in people’s lives. This could be due to the fact; he sees religion as offering a psychological and emotional comfort. Where rationalisation on the other hand leaves an answer of a cold, isolated place of existence where there is no bigger picture to life.

Webber however, saw rationalisation as the main reason for a decline in religion. He believed this would steadily replace faith. He believed that as the world is demystified of its magic and mystery, religious beliefs are taken away. This is where things are made rational and justified instead of ‘acts of God’ and linked to religion. Webber also saw a progressive reduction in the importance of religion. He thought people would focus on the rational pursuit of goals and answers, and focus less on emotions. He believed rationalization would inevitably wash away religions influence. He predicted that a wide spread of scientific knowledge and higher levels of education would lead to a more rational thinking world.

Marx did not see that industrial capitalism as such would messenger the decline of religion, but he did believe it would put in motion a chain of events that would eventually lead to its disappearance (Marx and Engles, 1950a). Marx looked at religion as if it was there to justify an inequality of the class communism, and religion would stop to have any social purpose.

However, Webber believes religion pursues the process of rationalisation. This is because he saw that the capitalist society had its origins in Protestantism, particularly Calvinism thus the spirit of capitalism was one of the main factors in the development of rational capitalism. Once on its way there was no need for modern society and it no longer needs to guide of religion reason was a sufficient guide. Once this happens there is no need for religion, this leads to a loss of mystery, imagination and faith in the unknown. Webber looks at the world a being taken over by objectivity and not subjectivity (Holborn, 2009).

Many more modern sociologists have followed the belief of many of the founders of secularisation. They see that rational thinking will decline the belief of religion. As science progresses it will over rule the more non-rational beliefs. This does not mean that the belief of religion will disappear altogether. Instead they argue that in many ways religion will just decline.

Brian Wilson a leading believer in secularisation defined it as ‘the process whereby religious thinking practice and institutions lose social significance. His sociological explanations are similar to Webber, where rationalization has overcome religion and has become more significant to modern society; he sees questions like ‘the existence of life’ become less important. However he sees things different to Durkheim in that he believes religion is going through an irreversible decline in influence.

Wilson splits the reasons for secularisation into three categories. The first social differentiation, he sees this as when the different institutions become separate as they specialise in different functions. Religion was once associated in all areas politics, social welfare, health and education etc. In modern society they have all become isolated and non-regulated by religion. This leads religion to be marginalized, the same view as Durkheim.

Wilson agrees with Webber in as much as he sees rationalisation and scientific advancements as the main factor in replacing religious views. Furthermore Wilson and Webber both see Protestantism, contributing to rational thought. However Wilson does lean more on the scientific side as being the bigger influence to the decline in religion. He believes that scientific methods have displaced a lot of religious explanations. In 1966 Wilson quoted “Science not only explained many facets of life and the material environment in a way more satisfactory, but it also provided confirmation of its explanation in practical results. This shows how Wilson believes that scientific advancements have significantly explained the world around us in substantially more detail than religion, and for that reason it led to a decline in religion (school, 2011).

Wilson also sees the decline of community, a large contributing factor to the decline. He believes that, in pre-industrialization times, religion helped pull people together. Through close knit communities, their communal values were expressed and upheld in religious ceremonies. Large community events such as birth, marriage and even death where encased with religious values, they were celebrated leading them through the local church (Bryan Wilson, 2004).

Like Durkheim, Wilson believes industrialisation was a large significance to the defeat or decline of religion. Wilson has linked these findings to the rise in rational thinking, and advances in scientific knowledge in modern society. He also sees that religious institutions that were once involved in politics, social control, social welfare, are now discounted and no longer have social influence. This shows how in the future this new circle of movement may continue, and religious practices may be replaced by more rational views and scientific knowledge (Bryan Wilson, 2004).

On the other hand a major problem with the ideology of secularisation is that different sociologist gives different evaluating theories of secularisation. This is because there is no agreed definition. This was seen when Glock and Stark (1969) state ‘perhaps the most important attribute of those who perceive secularization to be going on is their commitment to a particular view of what religion means’ (school, 2011).

Karl Marx looked at religion as coming to an end. He saw religion as a reflection of class society; it would justify the position of the ruling class. Additionally it would serve the lower class with faith of hope in life after-death and give the hope of a happier life for their suffering on earth. However, Marx saw social classes and oppression would disappear in communist society.

Marx looked at capitalism as processing the root of secularisation. The capitalist society produces a materialistic society in the world. This is where its aim is to manufacture good and produce profits. This leads to the social order being based on contracts rather than being made by god, as the religious beliefs point to (Roberts, 2005).

Overall, all three perspectives do believe religion will decrease within modern society. The Marxist has stronger views that religion will disappear altogether, where on the other side Durkheim sees religion will decline but will not totally disappear. Webber brings up the idea that religion has become more disengaged from society in the way of having less social influence in institutions like politics and social-welfare and the government does not represent religion as much in modern society.

Throughout this assignment I have looked at secularisation theories from four perspectives. I have found in general they all point in the same direction, although they do contrast in certain ways. Durkheim and Webber do seem to have the most similar view in the way they both believe that religion is declining, however not totally disappearing just taking a different role in society. Marx on the other hand has a stronger approach to religion, that it will die away from society, Opposed to Durkheim and Webber that it will just become more marginalised. Furthermore they all see that religion started with the industrial revolution. This happened when close-knit communities were broken up and people moved to the cities, this enables people to have a more rounded ration belied system.

Bibliography

Bryan Wilson. (2004, October 29). Retrieved Feb 15, 2011, from The Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1076505.ece

Holborn, H. &. (2009). Sociology Themes and Perspectives . London: Collins.

Roberts, C. J. (2005). On Secularization, Rationalization, and Other Mystical Things: The Unfinished Work of Marx’s Religious Criticism . Retrieved Feb 20, 2011, from CULTURAL Studies : http://www.uiowa.edu/~ijcs/secular/roberts.htm

school, c. g. (2011, 01 15). sociolological theories and secularization. Retrieved 02 12, 2011, from coombe girls school: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:OUM7LQHuW50J:www.coombegirlsschool.org/sixth/sociology/documents/Secularisationpart2.doc+Durkheim+view+on+secularisation&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgUHM382xwjDhDN5Owz_jBWxK1UVWW1nNcWQyKAI5G9nraCFTlYDcsDdQnT64Y

Spencer, N. (2008, 10 29). The credulous society. Retrieved Feb 17, 2011, from Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/oct/29/evolution-religion-secularisation

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

cwhite

14th of Sep 2012

Quality of writing

A few issues... “Webber” is spelt incorrectly – it is “Weber”. The writer also occasionally uses random capital letters in the middle of sentences, “... that it will die away from society, Opposed to Durkheim”. But on the whole the quality of writing is sound and coherent and will not detract marks from the essay.

Level of analysis

There is a wealth of information about Functionalism, namely Durkheim’s views, “By looking over the 19th and 20th century he saw a huge social change by industrialisation and urbanisation as a threat to religion” however this could be improved by name-dropping some other Functionalists like Parsons. This would then gain more evaluative marks as Parsons tends to agree with Durkheim about secularisation, so it makes Durkheim’s views seem more convincing. Key terms in Sociology are used well in context such as “institutions”, “capitalism” and “social differentiation” which indicates to the examiner that they have a good general understanding. The use of discourse markers at the beginning of paragraphs like “however” and “on the other hand” are clever to use because already the examiner is then forced to give you evaluative marks! I would suggest that the candidate writes more about Marx and Weber though to gain the maximum amount of “knowledge” marks. But including Bryan Wilson’s views in this essay is a good idea to show that you have knowledge outside of the specific theorists mentioned in the question. The use of a bibliography is useful for future reference as well as very credible, as it shows that the writer realises they have used other sources to help create their own assessment of the question.

Response to question

I have always been told that this is not the best way to do an introduction. At A Level the examiners don’t really like candidates to use the words “I” and “my” because the essay is supposed to be wholly objective. So instead of “In my assignment I will be looking at...” the writer should state: “This essay will discuss...” as it just seems more sophisticated and unbiased. The conclusion’s contents are good but it suffers from the same mistakes that the introduction does. In general the structure is fair because it begins with Durkheim, and then proceeds to discuss views of Marx and Weber which is what the question is asking for.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn