Malinowski, an anthropologist, expanded on Durkheims work. Whilst agreeing with some of Durkheims points he argued that religion does not reflect society as a whole, nor are religious rituals as the worship of society itself. Malinowski argued that religion mains function was to serve the people through times of social stress. He called these situations ‘life crises’. Included in these were situations such as births, deaths, marriages and puberty. All major religions have ceremonies to cover these events, be they funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs or baptism. These rituals and ceremonies helped people to cope with these life crisis. He then applied this theory on a wider scale, arguing that society suffered from these types of crisis, and religion was there to help guide society through these troubled times. He cited an example from a group of people called the Trobriand Islanders, a group of people he studied. Before the men went off to fish in dangerous waters, the Islanders always held a religious ceremony. Malinowski argued that this display of social solidarity, brought about by religion was a vital part of the continuing of society through times of stress.
However, as with Durkheim, it could be argued that whilst religion used to be the main medium through which social solidarity was shown, in contemporary society it has been replaced by new institutions. The death of Diana, Princess Of Wales (and, apparently, the ‘Queen of Peoples Hearts’) provoked an unprecedented reaction throughout the country. She took on the status of almost a saint. People made small shrines to her, her picture was on every newspaper. Perhaps though, it was at the funeral that the quasi-religious nature of this event was fully seen. Tens of thousands of people lined the streets of the Mall and around Hyde Park to see the funeral procession of the coffin. It was in this that it was changed from a religious event to almost a civil event. People were not being comforted by the thought that she would be going on to heaven, but were comforted by the sights of thousands of other people lining the streets, the sights of hundreds of thousands of bunches of flowers from around the world. This was social solidarity on perhaps its most extreme level. People weren’t looking to religion for comfort, they were looking towards each other.
Talcott Parsons again extended the Functionalist viewpoint by adding the idea of Religion transferring the Value Consensus of society. This was the process by which societies beliefs, values and systems of meaning were transferred. One example of this is the Ten Commandments in both the Christian and Jewish religions. They demonstrate how many of the norms and values of society can be integrated through religious belief. The commandment ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ can be seen to touch on situations from settling an argument through to driving a car safely. In this way religion helps to enforce essential guidelines for conduct which are expressed in a variety of norms. Alongside the Value Consensus Parsons touched, like Malinowski, on religions ability to help the individuals cope with the events of day to day life. However, he expanded this by saying that religion helps with the uncertainty we all face. He said that the act of religious rituals and prayer was acting as “a tonic to self confidence”.
In contemporary society some would argue that we are born with a set of in built morals, an instinctive belief in what is right and wrong. Alongside this there are these morals built into society through the idea of crime and punishment. However, functionalists would argue that this is born out of and reinforced by religion and the value consensus. For example, most people don’t go out and commit murder because it is against the law and they consider it wrong. However, some would argue that the idea that it is wrong to kill was originally founded in religious belief, and has simply transferred to wider society.
However, there is the question of whether in today’s pluralistic society, Value Consensus can be truly seen as a role of religion. Whilst it is true that most religions have basic rules such as ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’, each has it’s own interpretations and views on modern society. The differences between New Right groups in the US, such as The Sons Of Liberty, and movements such as Nation of Islam are a good example of this. Both claim to be religious, yet both come with starkly different values and views. Therefore, the idea of religion promoting Value Consensus can only be seen as diminished in a pluralistic society.
When considering the functionalist perspective on the role and functions of religion in the contemporary society it is important to mention that functionalists are rather keen on ignoring any adverse affects that religion may have. They bypass the frequent examples of internal divisions within a community over differing beliefs. Glock and Stark, writing in 1965 stated “We find it difficult to reconcile the general theory with considerable evidence of religious conflict. On every side it would seem that religion threatens social integration as readily as it contributes to it. The history of Christianity, with it’s many schisms, manifests the great power of religion not only to bind, but to divide.”
Following on from the Functionalists, the Marxists have their own theories as to the role of religion in contemporary society. Perhaps the idea you would expect most is the Marxist idea of the promotion of a false consciousness.
Karl Marx (the great man himself) once wrote “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” He argued that religion was a tool of the unfair state to keep the underprivileged oppressed. A way of enforcing the class system. They make a virtue out of suffering produced by oppression. It also offers the hope of supernatural intervention to solve problems on earth. A good example is the Sermon on the Mount given by Jesus. Phrases such as “happy are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” are prime examples of what the Marxists would say is religion trying to convince the oppressed that things really weren’t all that bad. It’s almost like saying the poor and under privileged would read that section and say “Well, I suppose if I’m to inherit the earth then at least there is an upside”. Marx believed that this offered an illusion of hope in a hopeless situation.
However, in a contemporary context this argument of religion useful simply as a tool of disguised oppression has perhaps lost some of it’s worth. After the revolution on 1917, religion did not die in communist Russia, and although it may be “the illusory sun which revolves round man as long as he does not revolve around himself”, in the age of electronic media and increased freedom and pluralism of religion in most societies it can no longer be said to be the controlling force that it once may have been.
However, not all Marxists believe Religion to be a negative and oppressive force. Indeed, Engels and the Neo-Marxists believed that a vital role of religion was as a force of social change and revolution. O’Toole, writing in 1984 commented that “With the work of Engels, Marxists have undoubtedly recognised the active role that may be played by religion in effecting revolutionary social change.”
Maduro would argue that in contemporary society, there are a surprisingly high number of incidents where religion has been used as a way of combating oppression. In South America, Liberation Theology is one of the fastest growing and most popular interpretation of Christianity. It is the idea that people can be made free through religion. However, even on smaller scales, religion has been shown, in South Africa, Desmond Tutu was a leading figure in the fight against Apartheid, and was supported by the church in the struggle. Therefore, in today’s world, religion has been shown to still have an important function as a powerful and effective way of fighting oppression.
There is certainly evidence to support Maduro’s view. The Liberation Theology is a good example. Until recently the catholic church was seen as an opressive force, not helping out those who suffered under the injustices of some latin american governments. However, more recently catholic priests demonstrated autonomy from the state by criticizing and acting against the governments interests. Priests are pressurized by the congregation to take up their cause. In contemporary society this argument is more powerful than Marx’s. In Maduro’s own words “Religion is not necessarily a functionlist, reproductive or conservative factor in society; It is often one of the main (and sometimes only) available channel to bring about a social revolution.”
Overall the Marxist theories, like the functionlist are marred by their age. Only Maduro’s work really looks at contemporary society, and so many of the older theories, such as Karl Marx’s, have lost their weight.
Following on from the Marxists come the feminists (three cheers anyone?!). The feminists (wait for it…) believe that religion has been used as a way of oppressing women. Jean Holm examined the level and extent of religion being used as a force of patriarchy in contemporary society. She argues that, whilst the classical teahcings of most major religions stress both genders, in practice women have been far from equal. According to Holm, “Many of the most influenetial ideas were worked out by celibate men in the first five centuries of the [christian] churches history, and the significant developments of the medieval chruch and Reformation were also shaped by men.
Prior to Holm, Nawal El Saadawi looked at the oppession of women in religion. Writing in the 1980’s, she argued that religion started to become used as a patriarchal force through the misinterpretation of religious scripts. One such example she cites is the story of Adam and Eve. “If we read the original story as described in the old testament, it is easy for us to see clearly that Eve was gifted with knowledge, intelligence and superior mental capacities, whereas Adam was only one of her instruments, utilized by her to increase her knowledge and give shape to her creativity.”, that is, according to El Saadawi. One could (not that I would ever dream of it) argue that El Saadawi is seeing what she wants in the text, rather than looking at it objectively.
The major problem with both of these Feminist arguments is that they do not really address the role of religion, merely the suggestion of it’s abuse by men. Also, in contemporary society women, in Britain at least, are much more aware of any oppression around them. Therefore, it is much less likely that religion can be used to oppress women. However, I do concede that point that in some religions, such as Orthodox Judaism and more extreme Islam women are still regarded as second class.
Considering all the arguments put forth looking at the roles and functions of religion in contemporary society, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from it; That is, the roles and functions that religion may have previously had in society have been replaced in the modern society we live in.
The totemism of religion that Durkheim mentioned has been replaced by increased respect and almost reverance for modern day items, from TV to football teams. Religion is used less and less as a source for support, in a world where people drive comfort from long phone calls with friends or counselling. It is hard to see religion being of any use as an force for oppression, of either class or gender, in a world where electronic media means that people can be more aware of what is going on in the world. Perhaps the only role that religion has now, is serving as a part of a civil religion that, in my opinion, society is headed towards.
