Marx did not make a large contribution to the study of religion within society due to his limited interest in religion in his later work. However, recently he has become more influential within this field. Steve Bruce (1988) highlights this in his support of Marxism in his explanations of the ‘New Christian Right’ in America. This group are large supporters of right-wing political candidates, attacking more liberal parties. Although, they have had little influence on American politics they defend the interests of the powerful at the expense of other groups within society. This portrays the significance that Marx’s view on religion still holds on the sociological debate today. Although we have clearly transcended into a more secular society, religion still evidently exist and as illustrated above is often involved in political restraint and social control. It is important though to note that Marx has been highly criticized for his view of religion as many express that religion does not always legitimate power. Marxists believed that if the church was taken away individual’s would see the true reality of their oppression, causing a revolution of the working classes. This never happened, even when the churches were moved underground in 1989. If what Marx predicted was incorrect does his work on religion still have relevance for sociologists today?
Weber employed many elements of Marxism in his analysis of religion, as he was concerned with the origins and effects of industrial capitalism in the West. However, unlike Marx, he did not agree that religion is necessarily shaped by economic factors and that often it is religious beliefs that have a major influence on economic behaviour. He believed that religion has the ability to direct action within society in a wide range of contexts, which can lead to social change. In his book ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ Weber (1930) set out to identify the emergence of this ‘ethos’ or ‘spirit’ of modern capitalism. In doing so he examined the relationship between Protestantism and the development of Western Industrialism. He wanted to portray that capitalism developed initially in areas where religion was influential because it’s beliefs helped to encourage and facilitate capitalist ideals.
Weber believed that these ideals were prominent in Calvinism and Lutherism, as they both encouraged rigorous work and self-discipline in order to fulfil God’s wishes. Calvinism was bound to the ideal that there is an elect, distinct group, which are chosen by God to go to heaven. But as individuals did not know whether they were chosen or not they would assume that they were one of the elect, as a lack of certainty would be linked to a lack of faith. Similarly, they were convinced that only those chosen by God would be able to live a good life. These convictions facilitated capitalism as individuals were driven by a desire to please God and to please God they were required to work diligently in their worldly affairs to ensure a good life. Lutherism also assisted capitalist production as it was involved in faith in God and acting out God’s will on earth. Therefore individuals had to be dedicated to their calling in life, whatever position had been given to them. This allowed for class hierarchy, individuals were expected to accept their subordination and fulfil their duties within their separate classes. Lutherism and Calvinism had unintended consequences as it helped to produce capitalism in the West. Weber believed that religion in the West supplies the moral energy and drive of the capitalist entrepreneur, as in fulfilling their religious duty individual’s are contributing to the capitalist structure within society.
Weber highlights how capitalism in the West came to be associated with a rational organization of formally free labour. It was dictated by the continual accumulation of wealth as appose to material rewards. He stated that under capitalism “man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of life.” (Weber 1930, pg. 53) He believed that this leading principle of capitalism was closely linked to religious ideals. He expresses this emphatically through a quote used by Benjamin Franklin from the Bible:
“seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before Kings.” (Prov. xxii. 29, cit Weber 1930, pg. 53)
This portrays the ethos that earning money legally is in itself an expression of virtue. Therefore this ‘spirit of capitalism’ that Weber refers to is an obligation one feels towards their professional life.
In discussing this work ethic Weber refers to the Protestant ethic, which encouraged abstinence from life’s pleasures and rigorous self-discipline. He refers to the ‘calling’ or career that was introduced by the Reformation. This is the idea that the highest form of moral obligation is for an individual to fulfil his role in worldly affairs. Thus, money making acted as a clear indication of an individual’s calling. However, this accumulation of wealth could not be spent on luxury but only in the glory of God, reinvesting profits in business, aiding capitalist enterprise. Laziness, leisure and anything that would distract an individual from their calling was condemned, thus a group of hard working labourers was developed incorporating a strong religious work ethic. Weber was highly concerned with the unintended consequences of the reformation, as in many ways it engendered the development of personalized religion. The responsibility of the priests moved to the individual, as they had to be consistent in their calling or career. Faith in God was no longer portrayed by an individual’s attendance of church but by their accumulation of wealth. This was morally sanctioned so long as it was combined with a sober, industrious career.
Traditionally individuals gained wealth for personal pleasure, earning enough money to live comfortably and no more. Weber states, however, that the ascetic Protestant had a different attitude to wealth, which was characteristic of capitalism. This was bound by rationalization, not wasting time on leisure and self-indulgence. Thus making money became both a religious and business ethic. Weber explained in his book that secularisation would occur due to this cycle; due to its emphasis on producing a maximum profit and that the ethos and morality that is provided by religious beliefs would fade into the background. As capitalism is concerned with rationalisation and weighing up the cost and benefits this would eventually carry on to religion. Weber believed that in modern society individuals would find it increasingly more difficult to rationalise their faith due to the time involved. Thus, Protestantism contributes to capitalism, requiring a rational approach to social life; however, this in turn would undermine religion causing its decline.
It is evident from Weber’s analysis that in many respects these religious ideals indeed link closely to those of capitalist enterprise. ‘The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism’ is still very important today, as it questions whether religion can influence decisions made within society. Although we are moving into post-modernity, religion still exist and plays a key role in social order. This can be seen in America in the ‘New Christian Right’ movement, which has a huge influence over the behaviour of its followers. Similarly, in political elections, religion is still seen as an important element in electoral campaigns. In Europe, many individuals’ still use churches to conduct their marriage ceremonies and funerals, highlighting that it is an important part of social life. But it is also important to note that people’s beliefs do not always reflect their behaviour, as they are not strong followers of the guidelines of their religion. With the rise of post-industrialism individuals are not longer expected to be strict followers and do not feel ashamed if they do not attend church services regularly.
Emile Durkheim’s last major contribution to sociological debate was ‘The Elementary Forms of Religious Life’, published in 1912. His functionalist approach to the analysis of religion was highly influential and is still referred to in depth in religious discussion today. He was concerned with how religion binds people together and the significance of the particular objects that are deemed sacred. Like Marx, he saw religion as a projection but not of class but of society as a whole. It is something that society creates and the symbols it involves are not sacred objectively but become sacred by the meaning it is given from society.
Durkheim defined religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” (Durkheim, cit O’Toole 1984, pg. 78) This is to do with the sacred and profane, which he believed divided all societies. Sacred is involved with the collective and are represented in a particular object that are given meaning involved with spirits or Gods are perceived as sacred by society. Thus what is important is the relationship between sacred symbols and what they represent. This is involved in beliefs and rites. Rites are given importance by the sacred objects that are engaged in the ceremony and this is only expressed by the beliefs of the religion. The beliefs of the society, therefore, give the rites and religion meaning, which reflect the culture of a particular group of individuals.
Durkheim illustrates this in his study on the most primitive and earliest known form of religion, that of the Australian aboriginal clans. Each clan had a totem, which was a symbol or emblem allowing them to distinguish themselves from others. Durkheim believed that the totem was a symbol of God and of the society, as in worshipping God the clan was in fact worshipping society:
“Their unity thus comes solely from their having the same name and the same emblem, from their belief that they have the same relations with the same categories of things, from the fact that they practise the same rites – in a word, from their participation in the same totemic cult. Thus totemism and the clan mutually imply each other, in so far, at least, as the latter is not confuse with the local group.” (Durkheim, cit Lukes 1973 pg. 455)
What this clearly illustrates is that the totem in fact is a symbol of society, as it is given meaning by society and thus is a way of binding societies to one another. Durkheim sees religion, therefore, as functional as it is society worshipping itself and if the symbols are removed it leaves it nothing to hold it together.
Symbols are still around in the twenty-first century, but what is important is if they still hold the same meaning. The Christian cross is perceived as a sacred emblem of Christ giving up his life for us and is worshipped by many who practice Christianity. Individuals do not see it as merely two pieces of wood but what it represents, which links to Durkheim’s analysis of symbols. Similarly, Durkheim’s view that religious symbols bind society together is shown in Bella’s analysis of Civil Religion in the United States. Symbols such as the American Flag and the ritual of the Pledge of Legence can be explained as sacred emblems in American society. These symbols bind society together and can be linked to religious rituals. Thus the Durkheimian notion can be applied to modern society, but it is important to note that this is not necessarily the case in Europe. The European Union, the flag and anthem, do not hold the same meaning as they do in the United States, thus when looking at Durkheim’s analysis it is clear that there are cultural differences and the idea of the sacred and profane cannot be applied to all cultures.
The work of the founding fathers is used widely in sociological debate on religion and it is clear that they are influential. They do hold relevance but it is necessary to adapt their analysis to post-modernity in order for them to apply to modern society. Religion and religious practice had a much stronger meaning during the periods that these sociologists were conducting their work, thus, the meaning of religion and how it influences or is influenced by society is slightly altered. Their work, however, is important to consider when discussing the sociological relevance of religion as it is from these three influential academics that many theories and analysis’s of religion have been developed.
