Upon critique of this influential functionalist’s view we see, once again, its exclusiveness when applied to reality. For instance, Durkheim’s views can be seen as somewhat circular and contradictory. Religion cannot give rise to society as in order to have a religion one must first have a society. Moreover, Durkheim overstates the degree to which the collective conscience shapes the behaviour of individuals. Indeed, Malcolm Hamilton (1995, p105) points out that often religious beliefs can be at odds with and override societal values. Hamilton claims ‘religious beliefs can have a much greater influence upon and hold over the individual than society does since it is often out of religious convictions that individuals will fly in the face of society or attempt to withdraw from it’. However, as a scientist I must criticise this criticism. We must not apply Durkheim’s theories to more than the environment from which they were theorised. In the aboriginal societies studied, this was not an issue as religion was a celebration of society and therefore would be congruent with the collective conscience. Clearly therefore, one could not ‘fly in the face of society’ based on religious conviction as there is no religious pluralism. Only when societies and consequently religions are merged could this happen. Hamilton’s fault has been to label a sample of people consisting of a collection of many different cultures and societies as one society, and then to criticise a theory by applying it to something it does not even theorise about! This however brings a stoic point to light that society evolves and that until sociologists can truly define society so that the meaning of the word does not change with time, sociology will be plagued by such useless interference.
Other functional views such as Bronislaw Malinowski see religion as reinforcing social norms and values without reflecting society as a whole or viewing religious ritual as the worship of society itself. Malinowski argues that belief systems and religions are formed to cope with situations of stress and uncertainty, thus their social impact is to smooth over life’s crises; such as birth, puberty, marriage and death, by expressing social solidarity and reintegrating society. On the other hand, Malinowski may have taken a particular function or effect that religion sometimes could be attributed to have (dealing with uncertainty) and mistaken it for a feature of religion in general.
Obviously, by its own nature, the functionalist perspective of belief systems and religion does not account for the dysfunctional aspects the disruptive force of religion can manifest. These divisive aspects of religion also have a social impact and must be considered.
The Marxist perspective focuses on the force behind religion, addressing both the functional and dysfunctional effects it can have on society applying a more holistic view.
When comparing present society to his perfect ideal society, Marx saw religion as the ‘opium of the people’ (Marx in Bottomore and Rubel, 1963). He suggested religion acts as an opiate to dull the pain produced by oppression in a number of ways: Promising a paradise of eternal bliss in life after death; Making a virtue of the suffering produced by oppression; Offering hope of supernatural intervention to solve dire problems; and to justify the social order and a person position within it. Therefore, from a Marxist viewpoint, religion does not simply cushion the effects of oppression, it also acts and an instrument of that oppression. In terms of religion’s social impact, the Marxist perspective sees religion as a potent mechanism of social control. He saw religion impacting on society to produce a false class consciousness, diverting peoples attention from the real source of their oppression with false justification and encouragement, and so helping to maintain ruling-class power. In short, religion maintains the existing system of exploitation and reinforces class relationship, thereby keeping people in their place.
Throughout history there is considerably evidence to support Marx’s ideology. However, conflicting evidence suggests that religion does not always legitimate power. Contrary to Marxist views that religion suppresses people attempts to change their situation, religion can sometimes provide an impetus for change.
While Marxist theories explain how sometimes religion can act as an ideological force it does not explain the existence or formation of religion.
Other views of religion’s impact on society follow on from Marxist theories of religion being an instrument of oppression. Feminist theories see religion, more than belief systems, as a product of patriarchy rather than a product of capitalism. Religion can be used by the oppressors (men) to control the oppressed group (women) and it also serves as a way of compensating women for their second-class status. In most typical religions of the last millennium women are subservient and secondary to men. It is easy to see how religion could be used to cement patriarchal power. Interestingly, the subjugation of women in religion was not there at its genesis. This suggests that feministic views do no more than explain how religion can be used as an instrument for female oppression rather than explaining how or why religion exists. Religion cannot exist solely as a belief system for male dominance, as retrospectively we observe many different ways in which males have historically been able to exert dominance. Indeed, women have not always been subordinate within most religions and belief systems. Before monotheism goddesses were considered central to the spiritual quest. There are very few early effigies of gods as men, but many of the Great Mother Goddess. She is present in nearly all early religions and not suprisingly these associated societies had female priests. Only since the belief in a single god (often a martial and commanding god pertaining to maleness) has inequality existed in religion. El Saadawi (1980) concludes that female oppression is not essentially due to religion but due to the patriarchal system that has long been dominant, although religion has been used to play a part.
In contrast to Marxist view, Weber rejected the view that religion is always shaped by economic factors but was of the opinion that with the right conditions religious beliefs can be a major influence on economic behaviour. Weber saw religion as an agent of social change. Using the Protestant Reformation as an example, he showed how religion might support a cultural revolution – in this case the rise of capitalism.
He argued that capitalism in fact developed historically as a result of a religious movement, Protestantism, specifically Calvinism. Calvinism, with its doctrine of predestination i.e. the doctrine that God eternally decreed the salvation of some and the damnation of others, not in view of the good or evil deeds they would do, but simply 'because he willed it', made Calvinists anxious about their salvation. This led them to seek reassurance in attempting to succeed in their economic (and other) undertakings, in the belief that God signifies his favour by giving prosperity to the undertakings of the elect. This ethic of ascetic Protestantism gave rise to the spirit of capitalism.
The theoretical perspectives discussed provide varying and contrasting reasons for the formation and social impact of religion and belief systems. However, all acknowledge that society and religion interact and can have effects on each other. Depending of the state and development of the society these theories have differing levels of success in their application. There is a growing trend toward secularisation in modern society and sociologists disagree as to whether religion is in decline or transforming. However, this issue centres around addressing how independent changes in society alter religion’s impact on society. Nevertheless, this demonstrates religion does not have full control of contemporary society. Talcott Parsons believed as society developed religion lost some of its functions. Marx anticipated that when a classless society was established, religion would disappear. Turner (1983) claimed religion lost its function of facilitating the smooth transfer of property from generation to generation when feudalism gave way to capitalism. Finally, supporters of secularisation maintain that industrialisation has led to profound changes that have progressively reduced the importance, and therefore impact, of religion in society.
In conclusion, belief systems form for many different reasons and can have a varied impact on society. Difficulties in defining religion and society produce problems in the application of theories and assessment of social impact. Religious experiences differ vastly from a quiet sense of peace that comes from the belief that one’s life is in the hands of divine power, to intense mystical experiences that inspire terror and awe. Belief systems differ in as much as they can be private, however, there are no private religions. That is not to say that belief system cannot be as powerful e.g. Marxism. Both belief systems and religion can unite or divide society and individuals. They have played a key role throughout society’s progress through history. Whether religion effects society or if society effects religion is arguable, both dynamics have been demonstrated in the past. Perhaps because they share common fundamentals such as forming a community by drawing individuals together (essential for society), they have become so integrated with one another. Consequently, this is why religion can reinforce or threaten modern social integration.
From the discussion, it can be concluded that religion works mutually with primitive society. However, as society becomes increasingly more complex and diverse, the greater the potential for the respective religions and belief systems to interfere with each other and society. This gives support to secularisation and also the formation of sects and denominations.
In my opinion, we are all inescapable social Darwinists and religion and belief systems are inherent forces being both product and producer of society. Importantly many theories (e.g. Marxim & Feminism) imply religion and belief systems to be an instrument of manipulation, this actually tells us nothing of their true underlying formation and social impact. For instance, just because art or drama can be utilised for ideological purposes this does not explain the existence or function of art or drama. As we move forward into a global society, the future formation and continuation of religion and belief systems is becoming more personal, born out of many different cross pollinations of cultures and societies.
Postscript
Theories cannot be based on undefined foundations, such as the word society and religion. Both can be interpreted in many different ways and consequently one theory’s perspective will work for their interpretation of the words religion and society. Thankfully, the definition of belief system is irrefutable and so has little controversy when applied and built on. There is more than one approach to perspectives of religion and society and unfortunately many authors and critics I have read have allowed themselves to become fixated with useless simplified criticism. For example, all textbooks critique functionalist approaches by stating the perspective emphasises the positive contributions of religion to society while ignoring the dysfunctional aspects. They would be well advised to notice the word functional, not dysfunctional in ‘functionalist approach’ and stop writing about the blinding obvious. Only a fool would criticise the dictionary definition of a cat by saying it needed to encompass the definition of a dog.
Bibliography
The Oxford Compact English Dictionary, Oxford University Press 1999.
Haralambos and Holborn. (2000) ‘Sociology, Themes and Perspectives’ fifth edition Collins educational.
References
Hamilton, M. (1995) ‘The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives’, Routledge, London.
Spiro, M.E. (1965) ‘Religion: problems of definition and explanation’ in Banton (ed.) (1965).
Durkheim, E. (1961) ‘The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life’, Collier Books, New York.
Bottomore, T.B. and Rubel, M.(eds) (1963) ‘Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy’, Penguin, Marmondsworth.
El Saadawi, N. (1980) ‘The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World’, Zed Books, London.
Turner, B.S. (1983) ‘Religion and Social Thery: A Materialistic Perspective’, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands.
As society evolves at a quicker rate than religion, religions can be passed down but society changes with its components integration. In short, the individual units can be black or white but the over all colour is grey and belief systems, especially religion through its rituals, attract like minded colours and so both contrast and unity is brought. When theories of functionalism are then applied to either black or white they work, perhaps the definition of society should be self defining.
Throughout this discussion I have failed to mention one very valid point, that religion could be a means unto itself in so much that supernatural powers may indeed exist and need to be worshiped or whatever form of belief is actually true and religion therefore has a supernatural control over society, this can be neither proven nor disproven so who knows.
.
