"Sociologists have defined religion in two ways: in terms of what religion does, and in terms of what religion is." What are the main advantages and disadvantages of functional and substantive definitions of religion?

Functional definitions of religion are often based around functionalism. Parsons, a famous sociologist and a number of social anthropologists have argued that belief systems have the function of maintaining society. This is the first advantage of functional definitions of religion. They suggest that the social order brought about through religion benefits society as a whole. Functional definitions refer to how religion links people together in communities and provides what Durkhiem calls "social solidarity." Linking into communities occurs because, in general people practice their religion together. The rituals that they practice within their religion have an essential role in developing and maintaining social solidarity. This therefore makes people feel part of the community and also helps them to accept social rules. Social disorder and social chaos are seen as very unlikely.

Durkhiem also says that beliefs affect how people behave socially and in some way this suggests that religion is able to control people and the society in which they live.

One implication of religion having the purpose of binding people into their communities is that it can also divide people; one religion may see itself as opposed to another. An example of this is the division between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. Also using functional definitions of religion how do we explain social change? If everything , maintains the existing social structure within society it is difficult to identify how structures change. This idea also brings up the issue of how do we deal with things that do not appear to, maintain social order? Crime for example is dysfunctional and puts a huge threat over society. Some functional sociologists claim that crime can be functional. Does this mean any social behaviour is functional?

There are also difficulties with Durkhiem's approach when attempting to define religion.

His ideas could be interpreted in such a way that all beliefs and practices that maintain social solidarity are religious ones. Voting in an election for example indicates peoples commitment to democracy, hence maintains social solidarity but voting is not a form of religion. If we use a functionalist definition we are more likely to see things as religious even if they are not religious. This might include football. A substantive definition that is far more likely to deny, for example that football is a religion.

As mentioned already substantive definitions say what religion is. Substantive definitions refer to religion as being about beliefs and practices, which identify some things as sacred.

Durkhiem, as well as having functional features also contained substantive elements within his definitions. He mentioned that Religion is about beliefs and practices. He said religion combines social practices and beliefs. Durkhiem also pointed out that the sacred is central to religion. The sacred is everything that is outside our normal daily lives and often includes beliefs in supernatural beings or forces. The belief in something outside the normality of our lives can benefit people in a personal and spiritual way. This is one of the main advantages of using substantive definitions.

There are also disadvantages of using this definition. There are huge problems with the idea of the sacred. Durkhiem suggests that anything can be a sacred object as long as people treat it as sacred. However, there seem to be more sacred things than just the things that religious people treat as sacred. Many nationalists for example treat the national flag as sacred. This clearly is not a form or religion though.

Although it is far easier to pick out the advantages and disadvantages of the functional definition of religion there are advantages and disadvantages of substantive definitions of religion.

Using the functional definition of religion states what religion does. This allows us to look at the benefits it performs for wider society. In particular the formation of communities which results in social solidarity. This, some believe decreases the chances of social unrest greatly. But as I have already mentioned there are several problems with this type of definition. Mainly by using it how do we explain social change?

Generally I found it slightly harder to analyse the positives and negatives of the substantive definition of religion. I think that by saying what religion is results in it benefiting the individual more than it does society. The sacred plays a large part in this type of definition and refers to everything outside our normal daily lives. I believe that this gives the individual, and in some sense society a way of looking beyond the norm and finding comfort in the super natural. The disadvantage here though is that things can be sacred but not necessarily religious.

LAUREN MOUNCHER 13JN.