The classical works of Marx, Weber and Durkheim are central to the formation of modern day sociological interpretations. Within the study of social life, Marx, Weber and Durkheim have their own distinctive characteristics on how they perceive the structure of society. The aim of this essay is to explore and evaluate some of the key sociological perspectives held by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim in relation to the subject of religion. In order to undertake this it is necessary to clarify a general definition of the sociology of religion. The sociology of religion endeavours to ascertain the explanations of social life in regards to religion and the diverse roles it plays within society.
Emille Durkheim was as many know a functionalist and like any other functionalist he examined religion in terms of what a societies needs where. Functionalists are concerned with the way religion contributes to meeting the needs of a society. “The function of religion is the contribution it makes to meeting such functional prerequisites - for example, its contribution to social solidarity.”# Durkheim set out to establish the fact that religion was not divinely or supernaturally inspired but was in fact a product of society. He sought to identify the common things that religion placed an emphasis upon, as well as what effects those religious beliefs (the product of social life) had on the lives of all within a society. To have some insight into Durkheim’s view of religion and social solidarity, we shall firstly look at his idea of the sacred and the profane.
This demonstrates that faith serves as basis for our knowledge so that we may continue to construct and expand our knowledge i.e. the second-hand knowledge using other Ways of Knowing, namely reason and perception. In this essay, I will evaluate to what extent faith is a justifiable basis for knowledge, in religion and another Area of Knowledge – natural science. In my opinion, I believe that faith is a justifiable, legitimate basis for knowledge not only in religion but also in natural science. Let knowledge be a cosmic and complex structure, faith is the base for this structure for it provides fundamental assumptions and without these assumptions, the structure of knowledge will disintegrate.
These three different perspectives are the functionalist, conflict, and interactionist perspectives, and are the most commonly used views by sociologists. These three concepts can be used to explain the sociological effects religion can hold. Functionalists tend to view society as a living organism, in the sense that all aspects of society contribute to its survival. The functionalist perspective emphasizes the importance of the way parts of society are structured to maintain the stability (Schaefer, 2011). Religion for a functionalist would be viewed as more of a reinforcement for the values that society holds.
This concept is also related to the idea of the unconscious as an important factor in determining and explaining human behavior and action. William James distinguished between two kinds of religion institutional and personal religion. William James interpretation of Institutional religion was religious groups or organizations. William James thought it played an important part in a society's culture. William James interpretation of Personal religion was that individuals can have a religious experience and can be experienced regardless of whatever culture he or she is from.
This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds. It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect. The next term to define is the one that most of us would be familiar with and can relate to. If you’re a religious individual or have some faith in the ultimate, you might consider yourself labeled under this category. As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium.
In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change. In Marx’s words religion is the “opiate of the people” which makes their working class life more bearable. Feminists also agree that religion serves the interest of the powerful, however they believe this supports the social structure of patriarchy and legitimates women’s subordinate position. For example this is seen through Hinduisms support of arranged marriages and the Catholic Church’s banishment of abortion. In contrast Weber’s views suggest that religion has acted as a powerful force of social change.
For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals. These individuals originate from diverse backgrounds and religions, and where as there is no specific religion that can be solely liable. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine how violence and religion can simultaneously exist because the nature of these two elements seems to be contradictory. To begin with, there are two particular explanations in which introduce some historical examples of religion and violence intertwining, and illustrate how those two entities (religion and violence) can coexist. One explanation states that certain individuals feel that violence is relatively harmless, and therefore feel no remorse in performing violent acts.
Carter believes that their spiritual attachment to their social group is what provided their pathway to terror. "Setting up these divisions based on faith and religion is the starting point for people thinking of themselves as separate and distinct and part of some out-group. "(Professor David Canter) Canter believes that although religion is associated with terrorism, it is the spiritual feeling of belonging that ultimately makes the terrorist. [It seems to me perfectly feasible to have multiple faith schools that recognize and encourage the good things in religion without creating the idea that one way or another
They emphasise the conflict and inequality and they argue that some individuals and groups may benefit more from religion at the expense of others. Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the functionalist view that religion benefits society as a whole and its individual members. (18 marks) Functionalists believe that society is a human body, all working together to achieve one goal of togetherness and consensus. Religion is supposed to benefit everyone as a whole and the individual members as well as it is one of the many functions that help run the society. Many sociologists have put forward arguments as to why this is true.