The month of Ramadan for Muslims illustrates Durkheim’s belief, this month brings Muslims all across the world together through the act of faith.
Talcott Parsons principles derived form the Durkheim’s ideas, is also a Functionalist from around the 1950’s. Parsons accepted the fact in today’s modern society’s churches, for example, do not act as a single unifying influence. Instead, he has seen their functions moulded into a core of self support through the legitimisation of laws, structured morality and helping others through times of difficulty.
Both Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons envisage religion as a sturdy and integrating force in society, that is advantageous for all, and how institutions such as churches help to maintain social order.
The claims made by both sociologist’s are valid, I feel. Durkheim also predicted the course of religion and where it was going before the 20th Century had even begun, although this could have already been apparent and easy for him to pass judgement on. Durkheim’s view is the most logical and simple explanation on view.
Regarding Parsons view, it can be clearly seen what point he is getting across and that, at times, it is correct, but this cannot be applied to all societies it would only be applicable to more forward and western thinking societies.
The Marxist sociologist’s see religious institutions as both conformist and defiant to social change, however, they see the institutions serving the ruling class than society in general. They also see religion as the ‘Opium of the masses’ which eases the pain caused by higher, manipulative classes.
This model can be shown by the example of the Hindu caste system, in this system the lower castes support the higher castes in attaining nirvana in hope that they are reincarnated into a better presence in their next life.
I find this view confusing in it self to understand, but feel that this is, again, correct in a lot of circumstances.
Action theories, such as Weber and Phenomenology, believe that people make religion due to the need of unity and security belief supplies.
Weber’s action theory argued that religion can encourage change. Weber believed that a number of societies had physical elements to develop capitalism, but the reason it started primarily in the west is due Calvinist Puritanism which had the foundation and attitude inlayed which made the capitalist behaviour more rational.
I think that Weber’s theory is flawed in many aspects, one example being that numerous non-Calvinist societies developed capitalism. I also think that Weber did think forward enough to predict what would happen in the future to religion and the path it would go along.
As well as Weber’s action theory phenomenology, derived from Weber’s action theory, is another set of ideas that challenges the Marxist and Functionalist views.
Phenomenology sees people as actually needing religion and developing their own ideas from that need. Ultimately concentrating on the role of belief before establishing institutions.
I found Phenomenology difficult to grasp and still haven’t completely grasped it, so, I am not in a position to discuss whether it is a theory that works.
In conclusion, I feel that in the past religion was very conservative but in today’s more modern world religion, among other things, have evolved forward. I do think, however, that more people are turning towards religion and using it a comforter. There are exceptions to this however, as some religions have grown stronger and united more people globally, such as Islam. There are also smaller religions such as the Sikh religion which bind people together through actual faith and no god instead of the worship of being such as Allah. Ultimately I feel that only a minority of religions, such as Christians in Jerusalem and Catholics in Ireland, in the west fully survive and act as a conservative force, religions in the east, however, seem to be run by the religion itself instead of worshipping through the self and by the self.
