How secularisation is defined and measured is of central importance in any consideration of how far contemporary societies have undergone a process of secularisation.
It might be argued that there are so many difficulties involved in operationalising this concept that it is ‘impossible to determine whether or not religion is in decline’.
At its simplest, secularisation refers to the general process of religion losing its role and function in society. Brian Wilson, one of the major proponents of the secularisation thesis, defines secularisation as ‘the process whereby religious thinking, practices and institutions lose social significance’.
Like other definition`s, Wilson`s contains a number of difficulties and problems. For example, one difficulty of Wilson`s definition concerns what social significance means and how we can assess and measure it. What would be an index of loss of social significance ? Can we use the number of paintings with a ‘secular’ as opposed to a ‘religious’ theme as an indicator?
David Martin challenges the secularisation thesis by pointing to the unreliability of using quantitative measures such as church attendance statistics and membership etc.
He argues for example that many of these statistics are collected by the organisations themselves and may not be directly comparable (eg. Criteria for membership may vary both between and within churches – is a member of the Church of England someone who, when asked what church they belong to, replies ‘C. of E’, or is it someone who is on the electoral roll, or else attends regularly?
Some of the statistics may also be inaccurate since increased geographical mobility may mean that some people are counted as members of two churches. A tendency to attend one church one week and another the next might also produce errors.
Another problem is that people attend church for all sorts of reasons – other than genuine devout religious belief. Demerath and Hammond argue that attendance and belief should not necessarily be equated and that we should avoid the quick assumption that church members are always highly religious, or that church non-members are otherwise irreligious.
If we define religion broadly – rather than the somewhat limiting sense of belonging to an established church – then we will probably conclude that what is happening in the twenty-first century is religious transformation rather than religious decline.
As the massive growth in New Religious Movements (such as the New Age Movements) would indicate, the present interest in spirituality (as opposed to established religion) is clearly evident and as Bellah aptly puts it what we are witnessing is a transformation rather than a decline in religious belief and activity.
Part Two - Essay question
Assess different sociological accounts of the role and functions of religious institutions and movements in contemporary society. (40 mks).
The role and functions of religion have been the subject of much intense debate amongst sociologists over the past century or so.
Many sociological theories of religion have emphasised the importance of religion as a social institution, functionalism in particular giving religion a central role in the integration of society. Functionalist theory assumes that religion forms part of the value consensus in society, operating for the general good of society and consequently benefiting individuals as well. Durkheim saw religion as reinforcing the ‘collective conscience’, with its sacred power giving credibity to common values, duties and obligations. To Durkheim, religion is a source of social cohesion and integration, binding individuals together as a kind of ‘social glue’. Functionalists also see religion as offering meaning and identity to individuals within society. Parsons has followed Durkheim in emphasising the role of religion in creating social order. Religion establishes general moral guidelines and is part of the process of socialising individuals into understanding and accepting the pattern of norms within a culture.
Such consensus view have traditionally sharply challenged by conflict theorists – particularly Marxists who reach very different conclusions about the role played by religion.
Rather than acting in the general interest of society, religion acts in the interests of the ruling class. In Marx`s words, religion is an ‘opiate’, dulling the pain of oppression in an exploitative society. An inherently false ideology, religion distorts reality, helping to create ‘false consciousness’ in subordinate classes. Suffering and pain – created by an unequal society – are justified, sometimes even glorified, by religion, masking its real cause and preventing people from seeing ways to change society. Religion justifies the social system, representing it as the creation of some all-powerful supernatural being whose authority of course, would be foolish and wrong to challenge. Similarly the promise of a better life after death diverts individuals from considering ways to improve the current life. So to Marxists, religion is an important means of social control in class-based societies.
Does religion however continue to perform the functions outlined above by classical functionalist and Marxist theorists? There has been a great deal of research into the current role played by religion, with many sociologists emphasising the declining role of religion in contemporary society, some suggesting that religion no longer carries out a wide range of social functions.
The notion of religion continuing to perform a wide range of functions does make the assumption that religion used to carry out these functions. Whereas most sociologists would probably agree that religion formerly occupied a more important social position, the idea of some ‘golden age’ of religion has been challenged. So too has functionalist theory, much of which stemmed from studies of small-scale traditional societies, the relevance of which to large-scale industrial societies has been questioned.
There is a considerable body of evidence to challenge the functionalist idea of religion being a kind of ‘social glue’ binding society together for example. The clear decline in religious observance in modern Britain suggests that organised religion does not bring people together in the same way as it may have done in the past. Religious institutions appear to be less at the centre of the community in modern society and there is much less involverment in the shared religious experiences needed to perform this function. This function is linked to the functionalist idea of religion creating a social identity for the individual. Again, the decline in baptisms, confirmations and other religious rituals which serve to affirm individual identity within the context of the social group seems to suggest that religion is carrying out this function less effectively than before.
Functionalist theory has emphasised the role religion plays in offering meaning and purpose to life, explaining what otherwise seems to be incomprehensible. Parsons in particular, saw religion as the main source of meaning for members of society, offering answers to the ‘big’ questions of life.
How far does religion offer a source of meaning in contemporary society however? Some sociologists, following Weber`s lead, have argued that science, rationalism and technology have largely replaced religion as ways of understanding the world. People in contemporary society turn increasingly to rational (scientific) explanations rather than those based on the supernatural. However, the growth of New Religious Movements and ‘sect-like’ commitment in some mainstream churches, does seem to suggest that this is by no means a complete process and that for some individuals at least, religion continues to offer a way of understanding the world. Opinion polls also suggest that there is a continuing high level of belief in the supernatural and this may indicate the depth of individual religious belief – the ‘believing without worshipping’ – that may be more typical of contemporary religion. So it may be that in terms of religious beliefs, religion retains an important function.
How far religion contributes to a shared set of core values is debateable – particularly in a pluralistic, multi-faith society – where there is no single set of religious values forming the basis for the moral order of society.
The traditional Marxist claim that religious institutions have an ideological function can find some support in contemporary society.
For example the close association between religion and conservative political movements such as the ‘Moral Majority’ and the ‘Conservative Coalition’ in the U.S.A, the role played by the Catholic Church in social issues like abortion and contraception, the presence of Archbishops and Bishops in the House of Lords are all examples of the continuing ideological functions carried out by religion. In Northern Ireland indeed, religion and politics are also inseparable – with most people voting according to religion more than any other single issue. Marxists would also argue that in N.Ireland the political ‘Troubles’ was essentially a class-based conflict ( clouded by religion) in that the main combatants (in paramilitary organisations) were working-class and that the most troubled areas (which also happened to be the most deprived areas) were working-class areas.
However, Neo-Marxists have modified the traditional Marxist claim that religion acts in the interests of the ruling class – to recognise cases where religion has challenged the ruling class. Maduro for example, points to the examples of Catholicism in Eastern Europe, Liberation Theology (the combining of Marxist theory with Christian Theology) in Latin America and the churches opposition to Apartheid in S.Africa as examples of religion acting to effect social change and side with the oppressed (rather than the ruling class).
In conclusion then we can say that sociological accounts of the role and functions of religious institutions and movements in contemporary society have, of necessity had to be modified to take into account the many changes which religion is undergoing in the twenty-first century.
Traditional Functionalist theories emphasising the cohesive function of religion are as outdated as classical Marxist perspectives portraying religion as the ally of the ruling classes and a means of oppressing the working-class.
Clearly society has moved on and the certainty of early, deterministic perspectives of religion (namely functionalist and Marxist) have been challenged by the apparent variety in contemporary social life – including the extent to which individualism and diversity is presenting a challenge to sociological Grand theory.
D.McCready 3.07.01
