Functionalists also believe that religion unifies people; the functionalist Emile Durkheim studied an aboriginal tribe the Arunta. He explains how the collective worship of the sacred totem by the Arunta united society into a single moral community. As their totem is sacred, it inspires feelings of wonder and awe due to the fact it is different to every other normal, profane item. Their totem is a symbol that makes them different to other clans so in effect it is like they are worshipping a symbol of their society even though they are unaware of this. They worship their society because they are completely dependent upon it, they are utterly dependent upon each other and their religion unifies them. Durkheim also believes that religion is the source of our intellectual or cognitive capacities.
Worlsey criticises Durkheim as he notes that there is no sharp division between the sacred and the profane, and that different clans share the same totems. And even if Durkheim is right about totemism, this does not prove that he has discovered the essence of all other religions.
Some sociologist criticise how functionalists neglect the fact there are multi- faith societies, however a functionalist called Robert Bellah believes he can provide an answer for this, he claims that these societies have a common belief system called civil religion. Civil religion is a religion that attaches sacred qualities to the society itself. “Americanism” unites every American in a way individual religions cannot. To be an American you must be loyal to the nation state and believe in a God. Americanism is expressed by pledging allegiance to the flag, singing the national anthem and symbols such as the Lincoln memorial all of which are similar things to what can be found in ‘real religions’. It binds people from many faiths and backgrounds together.
Bronislaw Malinowski says that religion helps individuals deal with emotional stress that has the potential to undermine social solidarity; it acts as an emotional crutch. He says religion helps to minimise disruption in life crises, for example when someone dies it gives people an answer for where they’ve gone and why they died, e.g. they’ve gone to a better place. In his study of the Trobiand Islanders, he found that they would perform rituals when fishing in the ocean but would not when fishing in the lagoons.
However, there are some criticisms of the functionalist view of religion, firstly as item a shows, Marxist and feminist sociologists believe that religion creates conflict and inequality and functionalism fails to see the oppression of the poor and women. Also functionalism fails to realise the conflict that can be caused by religion, for example the conflicts in northern island between the catholic and protestant faiths. . Another criticisms is that in multi-faith societies different religions teach different things and have different norms and values, sometimes resulting in confusion, this means there is no longer a collective conscience and everyone doesn’t think in the same way. Furthermore, some would argue civil religion isn’t a real religion because it isn’t based on belief in the supernatural.
In conclusion, functionalists believe religion can be seen to benefit the whole of society by creating a sense of unity and solidarity; and the individual by answering ultimate questions and acting as an emotional crutch, but this view is maybe dated. Some criticisms are that in modern day multi-religion societies different religions teach of different origins and different norms and values taking away the sense of unity and solidarity. Also Marxists would argue that religion only benefits the ruling class, confusing the proletariat and making them think their inferior position is god given and acceptable. On the other hand, feminists would argue that religion solely benefits men and subordinates women.
by
booobooo (student)
