Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist explanations of the role of religion in society.

Authors Avatar

Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist explanations of the role of religion in society.

Functionalists take a reductionist view point, reducing the role of religion to its mere functions. They consider religion to be necessary and inevitable as it serves to ensure the stability and equilibrium of society. In this way therefore religion is functional to hold back anomie. As a system of shared norms and values, religion assists socialisation and creates social cement which promotes social harmony. Functionalists therefore see this as a normal, positive and safe state for society to be in.  In particular religion is seen to support value consensus, integrating and patterning standards of behaviour by the values and beliefs held by its cultural system. As such, religion provides guidelines for human actions, and standards against which human conduct can be measured. By sharing these standards social accord maintains equilibrium, and so in turn religion is a tool for meeting this prerequisite.

Parsons was interested in how guidelines for conduct were a reflection of how religion has brought meaning to life. He says one of the main functions of religion is to “make sense” of all experiences in life, no matter how meaningless or contradictory they seem. In this way man utilises religion as means of rationalising and reconciling life’s contradictions. By adopting meaning, and sharing this with others, man has found security in consensus.

Similarly, functionalists put great emphasis on conscience collective. We can look at this term in two lights: Collective conscience, by which there is a shared understanding of values, or: Collective consciousness by which there is a common way of thinking about sacred symbols and thus society also. Both translations suggest that the absence of religion would bring about anomie, a state of normlessness. By defining values and beliefs as sacred, religion holds greater power in directing human behaviour. In particular Durkheim suggested that religion is characterised by the sacred and the profane. He identifies how religion can be utilised for control since people respond to the authority of the sacred. He recognised the direct link between the value of religion and of society. His study of Australian aborigines and totemism suggested that since the totem is both and outward sign of their principle God, and an emblem of each clan, the people are, in effect, worshipping the society. In turn therefore religion is necessary to place value on society. Durkheim argued that “Primitive man comes to view society as something sacred because he is utterly dependant upon it.” Like religion, society is subsequently regarded as more important and powerful than the individual.

Join now!

Malinowski looked more specifically at how religion is an antidote in times of trouble. Like Durkheim he saw religion as reinforcing sets of social norms and values, but unlike Durkheim he did not see religion as a reflection of society as whole, nor did he see collective worship as effectively worshipping society. He focused far more on specific areas of social life and how religion serves its members in solving the threats to social solidarity. In particular Malinowski identified anxieties and tensions that disrupt social equilibrium and how these crises are all surrounded by religious ritual. The key crises ...

This is a preview of the whole essay