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
... type, for the reason that this is what actual reasoning is. In the end, Durkheim's sociology of wisdom seems at risk to as a minimum as many experiential doubts as his sociology of religion. This may be further elucidated by the following words: “Yet if there is one truth that history has incontrovertibly settled, it is that religion extends over an ever-diminishing area of social life. Originally, it extended to everything; everything social was religious-- the two words were synonymous. ... This [weakening of religion] did not begin at any precise moment in history, but one can follow the phases of its development from the very origins of social evolution…. [Meaning] that the average intensity of the common consciousness is itself weakening" Reference "Elementary Forms of the Religion Life” by Emile Durkheim in High Points in Anthropology Second Edition, page 254
As many people already know, politicis and religion some times go hand in hand. Recently, president Obama delivered his Inauguration Speech to the world. There were several remarks mentioned that pertained to religion. Many of the remarks can easily tie in with the American culture core values, which include, Americans are among a chosen people, manifest destiny, morality yields prosperity, and the protestant ethic.
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.
Some sociologists claim that what changes primarily is the social system and religious change is an effect of the change in the former. It is not religion but, to a larger extent, the economy that is supposed to legitimize reality. From this perspective it is the social system that changes and this change in relation to religion means secularization, which generally speaking means the diminishing impact of religion on social life at various levels, degrees and intensities. Theories such as Luckmann’s privatization thesis or Hervieu-Le´ger’s emotional theory of religion may be categorized as giving priority to changes within the individual. The fundamental thought is that in contemporary society it is primarily the individual who changes. It is the individual that seeks direct contact with the sacral sphere, is driven by emotion, feeling, a personal and individualized need. The third current of theoretical solutions to the question of what predominates in modern and post-modern changes is the one that points to religion itself as the sphere of these changes. It is neither the society nor the individual, but rather religion that is pushed to the forefront of the phenomenon. Religion in confrontation with modernity takes on new forms which function well in the modern
No other independent enlightenment in the world allows individual independence to the United States of America. American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have improved a set of lawful policies that comprehensively shelter all types of the power of appearance. When it comes to appraising the level to which people take benefit of the occasion to convey believes, many members of culture can be accountable for misusing the boundary of the First Amendment through openly offending others through racism or obscenity (Karen O’Connor & Larry J. Sabato 2006). America is what it is because of the Bill of rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. The ratification of the Constitution warranted that religious dissimilarity would continue to develop in the United States. American has enhanced a different nature toward the power of word throughout history.
What has caused the most war, pain, and strife in the world? Religion. What has taught people to be kind, to love, to help one another? Religion. It has cowed many into worship and coaxed many into prayer. For some their entire world and existence is based on the principle that religion shall determine their next life, or lives, whether that be the afterlife or the next life on earth. That principle, in positive instances, has lead many into a life free of conflict, free of poor decisions, and free of unjust actions against others. In negative instances, it has been used as a basis for determining who is fit to live or to control entire populations of people. Besides these there are millions of examples of how religion has affected lives and how people view religion.
“It is science, and not religion, which has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand”-Emile Durkheim. Understanding religion is a very difficult task, with so many views and thousands of different religions. No matter what the religion is, or where it is located they all have an importance for society. The importance religion has is establishing what is correct and what is not. Religion has been around for many years, so has the many different understanding of the purpose religion has on society. Most of all the three key factors of religion that has an impact on society are; Social support, experience, maintain social control.
As Hinnells suggests, ‘Durkheim’s understanding of religion… appears to be heavily informed by the modern Western idea of a nation’ (2009). This is reflected in Durkheim 's choice of language, which arguably demonstrates the problematic Western Christian bias, which is commonly demonstrated by Enlightenment sociologists. Furthermore, despite Durkheim deeming ‘we have no right to keep some and exclude others [religions] and no logic to do it’, he himself is guilty of limiting his field of research. Particularly in chapter 1 of The Elementary Forms, some scholars might argue that Durkheim’s is strictly limiting himself to certain religions in order to argue certain points, particularly when considering the necessity of a ‘Church’, and his argument when refuting the necessity of the ‘supernatural’ presence in
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.
Durkheim is a key figure in understanding religion from a functionalist perspective. He believes that social order and stability can only exist if people are integrated into society by value consensus. Religion is seen as an important institution for achieving these functions as it sets a moral code for
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
" Religion is not just a social, cultural, political, or ideological factor; instead it finds its power in the personal chambers of the soul of the individual. Within the soul we discover the source of the private motivation that forms perceptions and behavior ( pg 7, Rediscovering the Kingdom)."
The sociological approach looks at religious belief and practice in relation to the society. Sociologists are interested in two themes, the centrality of religion in society and the diversity of forms it inhabits (Hamilton 1995/2001:1). It regards religion as a social fact subject to empirical observation, which produces empirical evidence (Dillon 2003:7). The sociology of religion is a product of the enlightenment, from which it inherited a tendency to dismiss religion as incompatible with rationality (Dillon 2003:6). This dismissal has had significant impact on the attitude towards religion and it is the basis for the most influential paradigm in the history of the field; secularisation. The secularisation theory claims that religion is or will be on the decrease in society. So profound was its impact that modern sociology often aims to account for the continued presence of religion in society and has generally held a rather negative view of religion as being an unworthy subject of study(Davies 2007:2).
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...