Sociological Approach to the Study of Religion

Outline and assess one of the main(prenominal) approaches to the study of trusts. Religion and The Study of Religions has many approaches which try to investigate the core of what piety is and what it means to the mess who practice it. Sociology is one such approach that this probe will be looking at by its founding fathers Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx. Sociology in general looks at flocks dynamics and explains a groups influence. It demonstrates how ghostly belief and practices have become so important over time and emphasises their role and signifi jackpotce throughout.Each of these three sociologists has a link to these ideas which will be the main thesis in this essay. Emile Durkheim looks at righteousness from a functionalist perspective in the sense that he assumes that religion has a unequivocal role in company, as it acts as an important complaisantisation process for exclusively members. The theory is largely pesd on the Arunta tribe in Australia, where he discovered objects worshipped which he calls totems. These totems consort to him were an important featureor in the society seeing that the objects became a symbol of the groups identity element and unity.These objects he claims be collective representation (Fish, Jonathan S. 2005 30) as they have reinforced the importance of integration into the familiarity via the worshipped objects. The worshipped object have an emotional signifi arsece to them as the totems serve as resonating device for reminding individuals of their initial feelings long after the assemblies (Fish, Jonathan S. 200551) therefore evidently it becomes more approximately the idea and symbolisation of the object rather than the object itself that unites all.Thus making the idea of rituals of greater significance as it principally binds people together which for Durkheim is al expressive styles a positive thing. On the other hand, Durkheim does not offer a real story on why some deviate from such societys e. g. Moslem fundamentalists such as the Taliban. Perhaps his theory in the main workings on a tribal base rather than bigger societies, where conflicts and divides are more common in a smaller community slight people are likely to go against the status quo. Moreover, to say that religion only plays a positive role is absurd.How can one explain the atrocities that occur on the name of religion for instance? For this tenability I find Durkheims theory limiting as it does not look at all aspects of religion or religious life merely merely draws a quick conclusion to it. besides fit to this perspective religion instils the same norms and values for everyone, making it a regulatory function in society. Religion for Marx whence becomes a form of friendly control which provides guidelines through religious texts e. g. 10 commandments. These norms which are shared gives people the opportunity to unite to what may be seen as morally incorrect or sinful.This can be vital in a society as it can allow social stability. Durkheim principle is plausible as there has been a significant rise in New unearthly Movements. This evidently shows that people still require religion in their life. Moreover, the recent increase on religious fundamentalists can be a point that streng pasts Durkheim argument as it can be evidence for people being threatened by a weakening society. Karl Marx similar to Durkheim starts with the assumption that religion is in incident a product of society.Importantly, however, he disagrees with Durkheim as he does not see religion as practiced for the whole of society but argues it benefits only the ruling class or what he calls the bourgeoisie. Religion, according to Marx only transmits bourgeoisie ideologies to convince the working class or proletariats that inequality is natural and fair phenomena in the world. Making religion as a whole a collective smoke-screen (Connolly, P. 1999100) as it distorts reality which gives explanatio n for inequality as being of religious significance i. e. sin.For Marx this is the core idea behind religion making it a tool for oppression and a form of social control. Religion is claimed to be the opium of the people (Hamilton, Malcolm B 200181), making it a drug which is used by people as an illusion to hide or cover up the real causes of suffering, which for Marx is primarily capitalist economy. Capitalism covers up religion and manages to help the bourgeoisie greatly, as it becomes a comforting illusion (Hamilton, Malcolm B 200180) as the proletariats do not question the status quo collectible to their belief in getting a greater reward in the afterlife.Religion itself is used to rid hierarchy in the world, a verse in a hymn such as the pastime are used, the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, god made them. highly or lowly, and line of battleed their state. This stresses Marxs point that as its believed to be sanctioned by God it is unlikely to be challenge d by anyone. The Marxists perspective generally makes many valid arguments which society can relate to even today. The idea of caste system is still relevant in many Hindi traditions (although generally frowned upon).Buddhism has the idea of karma meaning if you are a poor person in this life then its to do with your own bad karma in the previous life. Therefore Marxism is correct in this aspect, that religion is used in order to justify inequality. Another key piece of evidence for the Marxists perspective is the fact that the Catholic Church is arguably allowing the spread of aids due to its stance against contraception. As a forget of this, there is a continuation of social deprivation especially in Africa which further illustrates that religion is generally used to keep social inequality.Marxism disagrees that religion can bring more or less social change, this, however can be disputed. This is mainly due to the fact religious leaders have challenged the status quo in order t o bring about change in their societies. Two main examples being Father Camillo Torres Restrepo and Martin Luther King whose works brought about a vast amount of change to Colombia and America respectively. Evidently this contrasts to the Marxists persuasion as it shows that religion can in fact bring about social change and consequently allow for equality.Personally, I feel that the Marxists view limits human nature as it assumes they will simply follow rather than permit up to injustice. More importantly sociology in general claims to work in an objective and scientific way but I cannot see how it is possible with Marxists ideas such as on the religion being a drug and comforting as these ideas are impossible to measure. Max Weber is regarded as a social action theorist due to his claim that religion can shape and define society.He argues that religion can indeed bring about social change he bases his argument on a Christian group named the Calvinists whom according to him broug ht about a form of western capitalism. This form of ascetic Protestantism (Johnstone, Ronald L. 2004196) allows for the ripening of capitalism because of their belief on disciplined hard work which to them emphasised the Glory of God. This spirit of capitalism (Furseth, Inger and Pal Repstad 200636) did not allow for the accumulation of wealth but actually encouraged reinvestment back into the society according to Weber.The so called Protestant ethics approach leads him to believe that this led to social change as society turned to mass producing mechanised industries. Another way the Calvinist were able to bring about social change, was thorough the apprehension people had. Calvinists believed in predestination which led to the belief that having a strong business or being successful could have indicated that you were one of Gods chosen people. This gives the scholarship that people were competing over heaven and failure was not an option for people.However, Weber does not limit the offshoot of capitalism to the Calvinist alone as he is aware of other factors. Webers argument must be treated with a degree of caution. Evidence suggests that Protestant nations were not always free-enterprise(prenominal) and vice versa. Also many believe that Catholic countries were already flourishing before the breakaway from universality occurred. The study of Religions deal with many wide and opposing issues some of which have been covered in this essay through the works of Durkheim, Marx and Weber.Although, each sociologist does give a good account of explaining the dynamics within a religious group but with each case a very simplistic and generalised view was given by the sociologist about religion. It is plausible to argue that religion brings people together through rituals but is it not a natural thing for people to unite whilst doing something together? In this view then perhaps anything can be said to have religious significance as long as it brings people togeth er.Additionally, the idea of a greater reward in the afterlife is not the only exculpation given about inequality. In the greater sense inequality within religion can be about anything from the roles of men and women to dress code. Therefore once again this idea has been limited to it being about capitalism. Religion is said to be able to bring about social change which arguably is a factor but for it to be the only thing is for me far fetched. It is an inherent thing for people to beseech when they are being wronged. It is about something within rather than it being about religion.