HOW MIGHT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ACCOUNT FOR THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENCES, STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITIES, AND THEIR MAINTENANCE IN TODAYS SOCIETY?

by tania100x (student)

ORIGINS OF INEQUALITY

HOW MIGHT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ACCOUNT FOR THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENCES, STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITIES, AND THEIR MAINTENANCE IN TODAY’S SOCIETY?

From anthropological studies it is possible to make the claim that early societies and cultures had very little stratification or inequality. In those which did, stratifications were based on ability to obtain food and hunting skills, so social differences were largely defined by biologically based constructions of inequality and difference, such as strength, or gender. Alternatively, those with knowledge and wisdom would be recognised for their intellect (Democratic Underground 2009:2) but with shorter life spans, these stratifications were very temporary by nature.

With the domestication of plants and animals and settlements came a surplus of food, larger groups with more family units, trading with other communities, and so more wealth, and ownership of land. Stratification caused by inequalities in property wealth is generally accepted as the original societal construct to emerge with, and as a consequence of, the transition to a settled society (ibid).

Within these settled societies, leaderships became institutionalised particularly in the arena of religion, and social stratifications and hierarchies evolved. Whereas early forms of religion were concerned with the ‘energies’ of the natural world, congruently religion moved away from the personal to the organised, with distinct ‘priesthoods’ (Harris 2009:2). Religion itself therefore generated social differences and further forms of stratification developed within religious organisation itself, particular with regards to the aforementioned concept of property as the church was very wealthy in this respect (Rogers, Deshpande and Feldman, 2011: 4).

This evolution of early religion to modern day religious practice is based, in our Christian society, upon the Bible. This contains laws and codes of behaviour supposedly handed down by God; critically it could be argued that the ‘laws’ within were interpreted and therefore socially constructed by man, presented as ‘the word of God’ but for man’s benefit. Christians throughout the world try to live by its teachings. But the Bible itself contains stratifications in many forms, for example, gender – “Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive as the law says” (1 Corinthians 14:34) and race – “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among foreigners who live among you….You may treat them as your property..”(Leviticus 25:44-46). Slavery is seen now as abhorrent, but it still takes place today just in different forms, forced labour, sex slaves, and again supporting passages can be found in religious teachings our modern society claim to live by, i.e. “Slaves, obey your human masters in everything…work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord” (Colossians 3:22).

Religion has caused many inequalities in society and much conflict with other religions. But can the ancient readings and religious beliefs from the Bible be held responsible for social inequalities today? Other passages could be seen to promote equality, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Most Christians ‘pick and choose’ which laws they follow but it can be argued that by building and maintaining social stability, by protecting a society’s traditional values and norms (Dunn, 2010:4) and rooting stratifications in societal discourse, religion is to blame.

Religions throughout the world seek to offer explanations and justifications for social inequalities, endowing them with ‘divine sanctions’ (McGonigal 2010:1). For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that survivors of the battle of Armageddon between God and Satan will form a new paradise on earth where they will live forever ruled by a heavenly government. This promise for the future, found in many of the world’s religions, such as Islam, can encourage people to accept their status in life and not to attempt to change stratifications in society. The Hindu religion provides a religious justification for the inequalities of the Indian caste system and an individual’s position in the social hierarchy (Selfe and Starbuck 1998:44), legitimising stratification at birth by deeming the Dhalits ‘untouchables’.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Functionalist perspective sees religion as the predominant ‘conservative force’ which promotes social harmony by reinforcing values amongst members of society and protecting the existing state of affairs (Kirby, 2000:442). Durkheim studied the practice of ‘totemism’ amongst aborigines and argued that this practice of worshipping a sacred object or totem was religion in its most basic form. The totem was created by society as a symbol of itself, and as such the act of worship was really for the ‘society’. This act of ritual and ceremony, he claimed, bound society together and promoted social cohesion, legitimising hegemony and stratification. This in itself would prevent any rapid social changes (Barter, 2007:42), keeping the social status quo of inequality. In support Parsons emphasised the role of religious beliefs as the core of society’s values and norms which regulated people’s behaviour. Like Durkheim, Malinowski viewed religious beliefs as promoting social equilibrium, but he also saw that it fulfilled the need for emotional security, during events of stress or uncertainty, such as funerals or wars (Garrod and Jones, 2009:25). Unlike Durkheim, he did not observe religion as worshipping society itself.

Supporting Functionalist views, it must be observed that many modern ‘values’ are based on religious beliefs, even for atheists, such as ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ (Exodus 20:1-17). It has also been shown that religious affiliations increase during times of crisis or societal upheaval. In criticism, Functionalist views are often described as naively utopian; they ignore the social inequalities found in everyday society and in particular the church’s role in maintaining them. Also, contemporary societies contain a multi-cultural range of beliefs, so how can this role of a common religion bringing people together be fulfilled? Often religion has the opposite effect, posing threats to stability by tearing apart communities.

Karl Marx supported the Functionalist view of religion as a conservative force, and saw religious beliefs as part of the dominant ideology, performing a ‘justifying’ function for the ruling classes. If society were in turmoil due to an unfair economic system between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, then influence of the church, a social control mechanism of society, could enforce the conservative ideals of the ruling classes, therefore legitimising social inequalities. Wealth and power could be seen as ‘God-given’ and divine, therefore inevitable, beyond the power of mortals and ‘mystifying human authorship of exploitation’ (Dunn, 2010:3). Such edicts are impossible to be challenge without challenging God himself.

Marx referred to religion as the ‘opium of the people’, suggesting that beliefs, the ‘opiate’, eased ‘the pain of oppression and exploitation’ by promising an escape from poverty, suffering and oppression in this life with the promise of a better life after death. The purpose of this was suppression of changes which might challenge the inequalities of the capitalist system. For example, from the Bible: “It is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to get a rich man into heaven”, (Matthew 19:24) – could this be considered a pro-poor message? (Dunn, 2010:3).

In support of Marx the institution of religion is often associated with the head of state. In the UK, the head of state, the Queen, is also the head of the Church of England. Historically, medieval Britain espoused the “Divine Right of Kings” the concept that the right to rule derives from God and that kings are answerable for their actions to God alone.

But religious beliefs are not purely the justification of the ruling classes, indeed the ‘oppressed’ seek in religion a comfort and sense of belonging (Harris, 2009:6). Halevy identified that the rise of Methodism amongst the working classes in Victorian Britain was a way for them to protest against the wealth and power of the ruling classes without revolution (Hempton, 2005:44).

Both Functionalists and Marxists support the idea of religion as a conservative force, but both views are deterministic, and mono-causal. Additionally the Functionalists concentrated mainly on small societies whereas Marxists based their ideas on Western Christianity, so generalisations between the two are difficult. In modern day society increasing secularisation would suggest that religion has little influence on people and therefore cannot be held responsible for inequalities. Indeed, pluralism would suggest that religious beliefs contain more than one set of values in a multi-cultural community.

Feminist perspectives consider that religious beliefs have constructed and now reinforce social inequalities, particularly gender stratification, and view all modern religions as patriarchal and openly negative of women, thus maintaining women’s subordination in wider society. All important positions within the major religions are held by men, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism (Holm 1994:23) and women’s exclusion from the priesthood of most religions is seen as evidence of their marginalisation. Feminists believe that the gender differences in religion have been socially constructed by male dominated monotheistic religions. For example, in Islam and Judaism women must pray separately, Catholics did not allow divorce until recently and in Hinduism, it was the custom for wives to burn alongside their dead husband.

However, Armstrong (1993:134) contended that religion has not always been patriarchal, that in history women were considered spiritual. Numerous archaeological finds portrayed symbols of the ‘earth mother Goddesses’. Armstrong contends that it was only the downfall of the Assyrian Goddess Tiamat in Babylon in 1750BC that heralded the advent of monotheistic religions, replacing polytheistic religions. The ‘God’ became male. Saadawi (1985:34) claims that religion itself is not gender stratified, but it is man’s misinterpretation of beliefs which they use to legitimise a superior position.

Max Weber examined ‘theodicies of privilege or non-privilege’, answers to fundamental questions such as why some people got sick, or died, and he demonstrated how religious explanations could sanctify the status quo, placating those suffering from inequality and stratification and justifying the existing differences in the social order (Selfe and Starbuck, 1998:32). In ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ Weber attempted to link religious beliefs to capitalism, arguing an affinity between them (Weber, 1930:26). He claimed that the Calvinistic Protestant faith played an integral part in changing Western societies into capitalist nations, with all their inherent inequalities, as they held a distinct belief of ‘predestination’; that God allocated your position before birth, favoured or damned. Only the practice of hard work, the ‘spirit of labour’, thrift and accumulation of wealth, ‘the protestant ethics’, would secure a place in heaven as God would not let the damned succeed. It is clear that these values embody the ethos of capitalism, anything diverting wealth from the ‘production of riches’ was condemned (Weber, 1930:43).

Criticism of Weber would have to be his possible misinterpretation of Calvinism, as Protestants are by faith opposed to the pursuit of riches, for personal wealth. Also, Switzerland and Sweden, where Calvinism was prolific, did not develop a Capitalist state. There is also evidence that capitalism may have pre-dated Calvinism. On the other hand Weber did not claim a ‘causal’ relationship between Calvinism and Capitalism, he just commented that the two had common factors and as such concluded that religion could play an important role in social stratification changes.

Alternatively could it be argued that religious beliefs provide a force for change in society’s differences? The Neo-Marxists argue that religious beliefs, when aligned with the needs of the oppressed, can be a force for social change. Antonio Gramsci presented the idea that the church exerted ‘ideological control’ over societies, ‘hegemony’ and those beliefs and practices could develop to support challenges to the ruling classes. (O’Toole, 1984:13). He argued that religion could produce proletarian intellectuals and become a force for working class liberation.

Otto Maduro (1982) illustrated Gramsci’s point of view and stated that religious beliefs are often the only available conduit to spark a ‘social revolution’, to guide the oppressed in their struggles. He exampled Catholic priests in Nicaragua who broke away from the church during the Somoza regime claiming it was their duty to help the oppressed. They collaborated with Marxists and preached a ‘liberation theology’ and their religious views challenged the status quo (Hogan, 1998:24).

Martin Luther King, with strong Baptist roots, is another example of religion changing the social inequalities, challenging racism in America and succeeding. Other examples of religion promoting equality are the Catholic Church in Poland opposing Communism and Archbishop Tutu opposing apartheid. Ghandi’s ‘non-violent’ campaign for social change had origins in Hindu doctrine (McGuire, 1981:27).

Giddens (2002:76) suggests that as well as being a social construct, religion and its beliefs become structures in themselves, and thus the argument that it causes and maintains social inequalities, or doesn’t, is irrelevant, it is a reciprocal relationship, and religion and society influence one another in unanticipated ways

To conclude it would appear that there is no clear answer as to whether religious beliefs maintain social differences or seek to change them. The answer can vary depending on the religion in question, the society in which they are dominant, and other social structures, throughout the time and space of history.

It could be argued that when society is stable, the subconscious religious beliefs that society’s members have been conditioned into and refer to internally, will maintain differences and inequalities, inhibiting social change and this is seen in Western societies today, where day to day life is established and constant in comparison to some unpredictable countries and cultures. Even though social inequalities are rife, the gap between rich and poor ever widening, even in time of recession, the powers of government are firmly in the hands of what could arguably be referred to as a ‘toffs’ government cabinet, thus demonstrating the maintenance of those stratifications first set out by the church.

(2198)

REFERENCES

Armstrong, K. (1993) The end of Silence: women and the Priesthood. London: Fourth Estate.

Barter, J (2007) Sociology of Religion. Spain: Philip Allan Updates.

Democratic Underground (2009) ‘A Few Things To Consider’. Available at: [accessed 2.4.12].

Dunn, R. (2010) The Three Sociological Paradigms. Available at: http://www. [accessed 4.4.12].

Garrod, J. & Jones, M. (2009) Religion and Belief. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (2002) Runaway World. London: Profile Books.

Harris, M (2009) ‘Religion and Inequality’. Available at: [accessed 2.4.12].

Hempton, D. (2005) Methodism: Empire of the Spirit. Michigan: Yale University.

Hogan, M. (1998) Savage Capitalism and the myth of democracy: Latin America in the Third Millennium. New York : BookLocker.

Holm, J (1994) Women in Religion. King’s Lynn:Biddles Ltd.

Kirby, M. (2000) Sociology in Perspective. London: Heinemann

Livesey, C.(2008) Sociology of Religion. Available at: [accessed 1.4.12].

McGonigal, S. (2010) Conflict Theory & Religion. Available at: [accessed 4.4.12].

McGuire, M.B. (1981) Religion. Belmont, California:Wadsworth.

O’Toole, R. (1984) Religion : Classical Sociological Approaches. Toronto : McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Raines, J. (2002) (ed) Marx on Religion. Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

Rogers, D.S, Deshpande, O., and Feldman, M.W. (2011) The Spread of Inequality. PLoS One.;6(9):e24683.Available at: [accessed 4.4.12]

Saadawi, N. (1985) God Dies by the Nile. Trans. Sherif Hetata. London: Zed.

Selfe, P. & Starbuck, M. (1998) Religion. London : Hodder & Stoughton.

Swingwood, A. (1984) A Short History of Sociological Thought. London: McMillan

Weber, M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London : Psychology Press.

Wilson, B. (1966) Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological comment. London : C.A.Watts & Co Ltd.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barter, J. (2007) Sociology of Religion. Spain: Philip Allan Updates.

Bilton, T. (1996). Introducing Sociology. Third Edition. London: Macmillan

Garrod, J. & Jones, M. (2009) Religion and Belief. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (1996). Sociology. 6th Edition. London: Macmillan

Kotttak, C. P. (2002) Anthropology. The Exploration of Human Diversity. 9th ed. Boston: McGrawHill.

Macionis, J. (1997) Sociology. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Selfe, P. & Starbuck, M. (1998) Religion. London : Hodder & Stoughton.

Weber, M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London : Psychology Press.

This is a very interesting essay that explores the fundamental roots of Christian stratification and how this has informed stratification in society. Social theory has been applied and critiqued using a variety of evidential references to create a well-structured and concise argument. Well done

Page |