Religion; people's theories

• Aldridge (2007) calls religion a contested concept - a concept that is difficult on hot to define something like religion, however, we can look at three types of definitions (not Aldridge's idea)

  1. inclusive
  2. exclusive
  3. definitions in use
• inclusive; Yinger (1970): religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life
• exclusive definitions;

  Robertson (1970): they exclude certain things - refer to the content to substance of a religion. many of the exclusive definitions assume that all religions feature a distinction between a worldly empirical reality and a transcendental
• Marx: wrote a bit on religion and wasn’t his go to topic, however it was very influential. “religion is the opium of the people”, (opium is a hardcore drug and like an anaesthetic), so him saying this is saying that religion is a drug given to people to numb the crappiness of their situation (capitalism).
• Marx believed that religion served ruling class interests by justifying the social order and by giving order and reinforcing social inequalities. If we look at kings; who gives kings the authority to rule? – the belief is that the king or queen is holily ordained by God. Same with other European monarchies. (idea that poverty is holy, the rich people are ordained by God, religion blinds people from the truth of their situation by making them believe that their suffering will be rewarded in the after life)
• Feuerbach (influenced by Marx’s idea); he wrote about religion and Christianity, he believed that religion was a human creation (specifically Christianity and Marx was experiencing Christian Europe), he says that people attribute socially created values to the Gods – we project onto god socially constructed values (e.g. when society is war based, we think that god is strong and powerful etc) he says that people have the potential to be who they want to be like being in control of their lives but instead want to say that God is in control.
• Feuerbach says that we create a form of alienation/separation – we create divine forces and religious symbols which are distinct from humanity, god is like man but he is not man, god is merciful but not like man is (he is more and better) God can do miracles, man can hope to etc. separating people’s selves to the God’s self. Instead of us being what we want to be, we put those characteristics onto a pedestal and make it into a person to look up to.
• Marx said that religion is developed from oppression. Many religions stress the virtue of poverty therefore the demands for more material goods maybe be regarded as ‘greed’ rather than ‘a desire for social justice’. Theres a lot of this idea that poverty equals to holiness therefore people were discouraged to ask for more since it looked greedy.
• Marx: “religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
• Marx speaks a lot about religion and social control – social control is anything that society does to keep us in check and keep you behaving in a certain way.
• Marx said “the first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” He said that in the future, there’s going to be a communist society, religion will be eliminated, because since there will be no classes under communism; it will bring an end to classes, and it will bring an end to alienation (separation from each other) and to exploitation
• Durkheim: being a functionalist (serves a purpose); he spoke a lot about religion and he especially looked at religion within traditional societies. He thought a society should have cohesion – a fundamental purpose of religion. Religion in his opinion is cohesion (people sticking together like dough).
• Durkheim developed a general theory of religion based on his study of what is called, “Totemism” [a totem features different elements which are usually different things that are important to society – traditional society.] Durkheim says that this is society worshiping its own values and projecting it onto a God. The totem was a sacred. [normally represented by an animal/s or plant/s] the reverence of people towards the totem comes from their reverence towards social values, the totem represented the unity of the group, and unity to God or something bigger than them. [through norms and values]
• Durkheim: “religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things (that is to say things set apart and forbidden) beliefs and practices which unit into one single moral community (church) and those who adhere to them.”
• Durkheim (1912): elementary forms of religious life – 3 main elements;

  1)     Social solidarity

  2)     Meaning and purpose

  3)     Social control
• Durkheim (1912): elementary forms of religious life:

  1. social solidarity - Through religious rituals and ceremonies, the social group comes together and moral cohesion is strengthened. The moral community leaves the routines of profane life and enters a higher realm. The idea of a moral community suggests that the beliefs and rites of a religion are not merely received individually by all members of the society, it actually involves embracing people and be tolerant of other churches around you.
• Durkheim writes about traditional society. this also means that religion is a social fact, which could have obligatory and coercive nature [religion can make u behave in a certain way]
• 2. meaning and purpose - religious rituals and ceremonies do not only take place during occasions of worship, it also takes place during times of life crisis and social transitions. This is to provide hope, security and comfort by the community to the community. This is to give meaning to difficult or significant experiences e.g. wedding or funeral. [more than just the religious element] a lot of things are justified by religion.
• 3. social control - kings and queens would claim that they are made to be royalty by god.
• Durkheim; “the old gods are dead.” – as a result of social change in the modern world. But he still believed that religion would continue to find expression in different forms, even if we did not necessarily believe in specific gods, religious beliefs would still find its own way. Modern societies still require collective rituals to strengthen their unity and their values. Old ceremonies will be replaced by new ones.
• Durkheim claimed that it was possible to understand the essential nature of all religions on the basis of totemism. Critics argue that you cant explain religion in complex modern societies the same way you would in simple traditional societies. Modern societies are characterized by diversity and more. Religious diversity may also lead to conflict. He also was criticised for calling religion a social phenomenon
• Max Weber (1903): the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Carried out extensive research on many religions (didn’t get to finish his work on Islam).
• Max Weber; wanted to understand the impact of religion on society – he wrote about religions but concentrated on;

  1. The relationship between religion and social change.
  2. Influence of religion on social and economic life in the west.
• Max Weber studied the impact of Christianity on the west and the impact of how capitalism developed on the west. Capitalism according to weber didn’t develop in China or India (even though they had enough labour power and technological knowledge), because the belief systems were too different from the west.
• Bruce argues that science and rationality have replaced religion in the answers to phenomena e.g. how does it rain? Science and not a God. Religion in the modern world has become fragmented and doesn’t serve the purposes in the past e.g. going to friends and family for help rather than to a priest. People are also no longer constrained to believe in countries – choice and plurality of beliefs.
• Bruce; one of the few people who still believes that eventually morality will make religion go into a decline.
• Maffesoli (1995); Neo tribes – takes ideas from Durkheim but criticises the idea that society is one homogenous thing (one similar unit). He disagrees with loss individuality and critical of the theories of individualization from Bauman, beck and Giddens. (throwing away elements of themselves and doing what they want) he believed that people were dividing into neo tribes (new tribes).
• Maffesoli (1995): In modern societies; people tend to prefer to form part of small groups on the basis of common preferences or tastes. People join together from ideas, music groups, consumer preferences e.g. apple etc. these groups offer a sense of identity without a really strong bond (like old tribes). They move from one group to another unlike really connected and committed tribes.
• Maffesoli suggests that social contact and interaction continue to be important in society.
• Durkheim; neo tribes are a search for religion like “the old gods are dead”. Religion may find expression in other ways (it finds its way in).
• Maffesoli says there’s no need for the secularization belief to be a big polarized debate. New forms of religious expression are still evident.
• Bellah et al; Sheilaism -> survey in the US, saw a shift from organised religion and more into an individual point of view
• Sheila Larson (Sheilaism): she told the researchers that her faith was important to her but her religion was not church oriented as the church will define, she said that she wasn't a religious phenetic but was religious in her own voice and way - saying she believed in Sheilaism
• does religion have to unit society?

  Meredith Maguire (2008): this view of religion that it has to have the functions of unity and solidarity is a very western way of looking at religion. Bellah’s argument that there could be millions of religions, is seen to be very western. She argues that if we keep focused on religion as a set of unifying the values , we are going to miss experiences of religion in contemporary societies.
• Giddens and Sutton book; story of lived religion – brought up catholic and then their beliefs change with time, they will still feel linked back to the church no matter what. This may give a lack of consistency and logic for people.
• according to Maguire, one has to see how religious experiences fit into one holistic, personal and meaningful whole. she believes that we need to understand such complexities to appreciate the changes that occur between the individual, religion and society.
• Elizabeth cady Stanton(1895): the woman’s bible. Her story; she believed that god created men and women equal and the bible should reflect this. The bible was written by men and no female representation and in 1870 the church set up a committee to revise the bible. As this revision happened, Elizabeth said it didn’t contain women however she didn’t give up and set up a woman’s revising committee and worked towards the publication of the woman’s bible. In a conference, one of her friends said a prayer to “god our mother”.
• Weber: saw religious organizations falling on a continuum. On one end you have the most established and socially accepted and the opposite on the other side relative to the society we are talking about. However these distinctions are based on religion in the west.
• According to weber: religious people who do not have to demonstrate their religious status or a desire to belong as they are born into it. It has a universal appeal
• Bruce (1996): the idea of a church as a unifying force is more relevant to pre-modern Christian societies. (at some point there was only one church and not branches, religion started to lose its unifying force as people had different legitimate beliefs) this is before a plurality of religions