Upon the influence of Durkheim, Marx approached religion from Hegel’s evolutionary dialectic of society evolving through the three principles of; a thesis produces an opposite (antithesis), the two are then resolved in a synthesis, this a new thesis that can be challenged. He applied this dialectic to the material, in the form of dialectical materialism. He sought to reaffirm the Hegelian dialectic into an idea of development by conflict in society.
Marx had a utopian vision of the future in which all people would be equal because the class system would no longer exist and no one would be exploited. He thought society fell into two groups, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The ruling class owned the means of production whilst the working class could sell their labour to the ruling class. The ruling class exploited the proletariat by paying them very little. This resulted in the proletariat feeling alienated from society. He believed that the only way out of this situation was for the proletariat to rise up against the ruling class and seize the means of production. Once the people owned the means of production, social classes would disappear and there would be no need for religion, since it existed only under the old social conditions.
Religion was seen as an illusion, it dulls the pain of oppression for the proletariat but at the same time it blinds them form their true reality, stopping them seeing what needs to be done to end their exploitation, as Marx infamously puts it, “It is the opium of the people”.
A slightly different perspective came from Weber, who was more concerned with trying to discover links between types of religion and social life, with a particular emphasis on economics. He believed that religion grew from the belief of magic and they were an attempt to make sense of the world. Over time religion grew apart from magic by a process of rationalisation, until it gained an independence from it.
To Weber, religion is a response to the difficulties in the world. He saw only a connection between deprivation and religion, not a source of the cause of religion like Marx. He thought that religion had a more active role, by saying religious movements could often be important agents of social change. He argued that ascetic Calvinist Protestantism preceded development of capitalism and that Capitalism developed initially in areas where religion is influential. E.g. China had the knowledge, labour and individuals motivated to make money, but as they had no religion that persisted and helped the development of capitalism, i.e. Protestant thinking, this couldn’t happen.
- “Sociology gives a total explanation of religious belief”- Discuss
Sociology does not give a total explanation of religious belief. In regards to Durkheim’s theory, is that he only studied a small number of Aboriginal groups (untypical), therefore it is very misleading to generalise about Aborigines, let alone religion as a whole based upon this. But subconsciously we feel a need to belong to a group or society, therefore making our society “God” as Feuerbach argues. However some like to think of themselves as individuals and do not wish to conform, e.g. the “Punks”. However, don’t they still need a group to belong to though?
Many agree with the promotion of social solidarity, but disagree that it is worship of society. Durkheim’s views are appropriate for small, non-literate, mono-cultural societies, with close integration, where social institutions merge. Therefore his views are less relevant to modern societies, which have many subcultures and ethnic groups.
In criticism to Marx’s perspectives, is that poverty has improved, but religion has not withered away, so doesn’t that therefore suggest religion must have another function, other than to offer illusory, substitute goals? He failed to see that religion might have other sources besides the need for otherworldly consolation. Religion has made an emphasis on moral living and concern for others as shown in lives of spirits, martyrs and prophets. His argument that religion prevents any form of revolt, as it threatens eternal damnation, making it good for social control, does not fit in with the fact that some religion has however, inspired social ideals of equality an justice. Social reformers such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King show this. Engels argues he saw early Christian sects as radical challenge to authority of Roman law.
If God is society as Durkheim suggests, then how its mistakes be explained such as the Liberation Theology Movement, where they looked to the Gospels for its inspiration, an, which ironically was criticised by many for being “too Marxist”. This shows that religion is one of the few things that can stimulate revolt. Recently, Catholic priests have acted against interests of bourgeoisie, but Weber did recognise that religious movements could often be important agents of social change.
Sociology does not give a total explanation to religious belief. In criticism to Weber, that the first capitalist countries may have been Protestant, but not all Protestant countries are capitalist. There are other ways in explaining religious belief, such as from a psychological approach, where Jung for example said that religion performs the function of harmonising the psyche and as such it is beneficial. The removal of religion would lead to psychological problems, unlike Marx, where the removal of religion would benefit society, revealing to them their true reality.
