Religion as a Conservative Force Describing Religion as a 'Conservative Force' seems to imply that Religion is an inhibitor of social change and used as a means by which to maintain the existing order of Society and the Status Quo. Some Sociologists such as Durkheim and Marx would agree with this and there are others who would argue against such a claim. It is a debate, one side says Religion inhibits change and the other says it sets social change in motion. As already mentioned Durkheim believed that Religion acts as a Conservative Force. In more detail what he actually thought was that Religious worship is like worshipping Society, in other words the beliefs in religion actually strengthen the values of the Society from which Religion originates. Durkheim used the practice of Totemism among Australian Aborigines as an example, the Totem pole is a sacred object and each clan has an individual symbol on the Totem. The carvings on the pole are incredibly meaningful to that Society, everything from the group's history to it's very existence is invested in the pole (Not unlike the Church's significance in some societies such as Britain). Durkheim saw religion as a means of reaffirming the collective conscience although there have been many criticisms of this view. One is that the theory doesn't meet modern times, Durkheim's view is more relevant to small pre-industrial societies, in more complex societies with so many varying beliefs and only a small proportion attending church then it seems impossible that religion can affectively reaffirm society. Another criticism is that religion does not always act as an integrative force, th... ... middle of paper ... ...he actual individuals in society and what things such as Religion means to them. One example of this kind of view is Eileen Barker's Participant Observation study of the Moonies. The individuals within the Cult shared meanings such as; a sense of belonging, clear direction in terms of how they thought, answers to spiritual questions.etc. In conclusion, although the likes of Durkheim and Marx provide very good evidence of how Religion may act as a Conservative force, once you consider modern examples such as Islamic Fundamentalism, the state of Israel and Ireland and the apparent process of Secularisation it seems that Religion is maintaining nothing like the two Sociologists described. If Religion is maintaining anything then it seems to be conflict, surely that cannot be viewed as part of the conservative force.
In Nathan O. Hatch’s “The Democratization of American Christianity” he quickly forms his thesis and expands on the argument “both that the theme of
Christianity’s role in America has rapidly changed over the last decades. Although it is still the most popular religion in the country its power over the people has decreased significantly. However, there are still many misconceptions towards American Christianity and in order to understand the unique nature of this religiously diverse country; one must understand its history and its citizens own views on the matter.
It is common knowledge that in the past religion and myths were just ways for societies to explain events and occurrences that citizens of ancient societies did not have enough advanced knowledge to understand. It was also used as a way to oppress others, as seen in the explanation of class order and royalty as God placing a person where they were meant to be and that there was nothing one could do about it, because who can go against God himself? Religion played an even bigger part than that though, being a large part of every person’s identity and something for a country and its people to unit over. But as society slowly aged, and governments were reorganized and re-structured, one can see a reduction in religion being a part of someone’s identity. It is hard to imagine being without an identity so it came as no surprise when, as the void left by religion was opened, people began to create an identity that had to do with different ideas and ideologies. More specifically, new political movements, ideas of nationalism, and change of social norms brought on by many writers and theorists such as Karl Marx, John Mill, and many others. The spread of such ideas was also helped by the spread of public education and rising literacy rates in western society.
The Necessity of Religion in Today's Society No, religion in NOT necessary in today’s society. Maybe not every war but, the main cause of some of the most devastating wars has been religion. Today, discrimination is based on a person’s belief or religion. Though some might say that discrimination could be based on clothes or looks, but those trends may be demanded of them by their religious beliefs.
How a person makes decisions can be based on multiple different things. A lot can be based on a person’s values and morals. These morals and values can be very different from person to person and culture to culture. Culture is the learned portion of human behavior, it is the basis many values and morals are built on. Just because a person has different ideas from you does not make them wrong. Ethical decisions must be made by looking at and accepting different viewpoints. The Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) is a tool to help determine how one makes decisions. To begin to understand the ELI, one must understand the four core values of autonomy, sensibility, rationality, and equality. Autonomy is defined by dictionary.com as “the independence
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...
Parsons claims that religion is our primary source of meaning; it answers the eternal questions and help to understand things like suffering and pain. It also produces, sacralises and legitimises the core values of society e.g. Protestantism in the USA encouraged individualism, democracy and equality of opportunity. Bellah claims that there is a civil religion and gives the example of America and its faith in Americanism, he says that civil religion unites society. However the functionalist view can be criticised: It focuses on the positive aspects of religion and ignores that it is the cause of conflict in much of the world e.g. Northern Ireland and conflict between protestants and Catholics, It does not explain the origins of religion, explaining what functions religion performs does not help us to know where it came from. Durkheim did his studies I small scale non-literate societies, it is difficult to see how religion performs its functions in out large complex religiously plural society.
He claims that the only differentiation between magic and religion is the lack of unity of people living the same life in magic, as he expresses ‘the magician stands aloof’. The concept of the ‘Church’ is the communal faith and the similar view towards the relations between the sacred and profane. This is a popular belief among sociologists of religion. Northcott, who supports Durkheim’s religion definition, expresses that ‘religion is therefore a source of social and moral order, binding the members of society to a common social project, a set of shared values and social goals’ (1999). It is true that Durkheim regarded religion as a product of society and claimed all religion was the origin of moral beliefs. Furthermore, due to the belief that religion is a reflection of society, Durkheim rejects the belief that religiously diverse societies could successfully integrate. Stark et al believe that ‘it does not seem to have occurred to him that several faiths could generate independent, co-existing moral
some, such as Karl max saw that religion is a way strong of a tool that impairs social evaluation. Which resulted in ethnic and religious cleansing and furthermore proved to be the wrong approach to defining the role that religion plays in societies behaviors. I for one, think that religion is an indispensable and integral part of human sociology; furthermore, I believe understanding this relationship would lead to social development.
He describes religion in modern societies, which he believes will be rational and will express the values of the society and its unity. Faith will be based on reason and justice will be one of its core values. In religion, man is the object of a new cult. Durkheim refers to this new religion as individualism or individualism as a cult or cult of the individual man or eventually as a personal cult of man (Pickering 1984: 485). Since the cult of the individual represents the highest moral ideal of society, the state should organize worship and be his head. Humanist religion is not fully united with the state, but he transcends the nation state as well. It is also universal in a fundamental way, as he refers to humanity as a moral subject and
Functionalists believe religion is a conservative force that performs positive functions of promoting social integration and social solidarity through the reinforcement of value consensus. In this essay I will draw on ideas from Durkheim, Malinowski, Parsons and Bellah. I will then evaluate these theorists with Marxist, feminist and postmodernist perspectives in order to assess the extent functionalism helps us to understand religion today.
In discussing the similarities between Marx, Weber and Durkheim, it is important to understand what social order and social change are. Social order is the systems of social structures (relations, values and practice etc.) that maintain and enforce certain patterns of behaviour. Whereas, social change refers to an alteration in the social order of a society, examples of such alterations can be changes in nature, social institutions, behaviours and/or social relations. (Bratton and Denham 2014) Throughout time, religion has always been a hot topic of controversy, whether it is based on being a part of the same religion, to having different religious views on life and how to live life. This is due in large to the ever changing views on religion and the way it can be practised. Religion can be viewed in both aspects of social order and social change because it is part of a system, however, alterations are frequently made. The three sociologists Marx, Weber and Durkheim have all expressed their views on religion with respect to society. Webers’ views show the effects
In the midst of a diversified society, communities tend to hold individuals to many set standards and stereotypes. One may compare the poor man to the rich, the black woman to the white, and even in the United States of America, the Christian family to the Muslim. Despite the many unique characteristics individuals and communities have, it is the institution of religion that places strongholds on individuality thus harboring conformity. Religious communities expect their members to assume a certain shape, to fit a particular mold; restriction essentially diminishes individuality while accepting conformity. In the twenty-first century, a time period that encourages creativity and individuality, it is the very institution of religion that ultimately shuns individualism by promoting conformity through religious group membership, the coercion of viewpoints, as well as the oppression of “different” views and the ostracism of the individuals who have different beliefs.
In the 18th century to 19th century, there were many great influential leaders of Christianity that influenced many individuals belief systems. During this time period three great movements included the relevance of liberalism, Neo-orthodoxy, and Evangelical views. These views in particular had great influence over how individuals applied biblical scripture to their everyday life.
The reason for the secuarlisation can be seen in the fact that sociology is a theory both guided by and aims to build theories (Wuthnow/Dillon 2003:21). Theories require analysis and generalisation. It is impossible to analyse a subject without first defining the subject (Robertson 1970:34). Definition is a contentious issue because different definitions entail different criteria which lead to different patterns being indentified in data. Theories are created by the identification of patterns in data which are then generalised.(Davies 2007:5). Thus a definition will vastly affect the content and concept of a theory. Definitions of religion in sociology fall into two categories, functional and substantive. This essay will assess...