Social Institution: Religion - Admission/Application Essay Example

? Social Religion Affiliation) Before an attempt can be made to define religion in the context of society it isimportant to identify what religion really refers to. Sociologists have striven hard to define what exactly religion, because any definition is bound to leave some religions out of the scope of that definition. In the modern world, religion is increasingly a personal affair, but in other societies such as African or South-Asian religion is not only an individualistic paradigm but also a collective social institution that, according to different sociological theories, pursues the objectives of integration or conflict. The definition of religion is therefore divided in two major distinctions: substantive and functional1. Substantive definition revolves around finding the meaning or the essence of religion – the very substance on which it is built and followed. This approach is about finding that essential element that constitutes a specific religion. For example, Islam is based upon the Oneness of God, whereas Buddhism hinges upon reincarnation, and reaching the state of Nirvana. Interestingly, Scientology, which is religion to some, is substantially based upon following the so-called ‘scientific’ way of living. Edward B Taylor (1873/1958) defined religion as ‘belief in spiritual beings’. The functional definition of religion is based upon finding the role that religion plays in societies; pointing out those functions that sets it apart from other social institutions and give it the coherence particularly found in religions. Milton Yinger (1970)2 argued that a social institution must be given the status of religion as such when it fulfills the manifest functions of a religious social institution. He argued that finding meaning in life was one of the paramount considerations of an individual and if a theory that sets out concrete guidelines on how to discover that meaning, then that theory could be thought of as religion. Secondly, if a religious theory attempts to solve problems of human life – the ultimate problems of human life, according to Yinger, are to find what death, injustice, evil, life and suffering mean – then that’s religion. According to this proposition, the definition of religion is expanded and quite a variety of forms of ‘religions’ could be accommodated. Similarly, Robert Bellah (1970c) proposed a definition of religion that was similar to Yinger’s as it was based upon discovering whether a certain religious theory addresses the questions material to human life: those relating to “ultimate concerns’’ of life. Now, that it is clear that all encompassing definition of religion is an impossible task, it is pertinent to evaluate how Functionalism, Conflict theories and Interactionism view of religion. Functionalism is a structural perspective that sees society as an interdependent system, where each social institution - education, religion, family, media, government – perform distinct roles to achieve greater harmony and solidarity. It assumes that society is a system that’s inherently stable with a tendency to create equilibrium by itself, thereby, creating harmony and integration. Thus, religion too for Functionalists perform that very function, it acts to bring the community closer, making it more inter-dependent on each part of the system and contributes towards maintaining stability and equilibrium. Emile Durkheim researched the Australiam aborigines and South Seas Islanders, in his The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) he argued that the main purpose of religion, especially in primitive societies, was to bring them close to each other. The purpose was not to connect with a spiritual being or a higher Diety but to feel the oneness among them. Therefore, religion infused social cohesion and increased the sense of collectiveness among the individuals. In modern societies however, religion is used to overcome the crisis of modernity. The increasing isolation of the individual from his family, peers and society in general is abated through recurrent recourse to religious institutions like the rise if popularity of the Ashrams in India. In primitive societies on the other hand, as Durkheim argued, people celebrated each event in their lives collectively – this social interaction with one another did not leave any individual to face life alone. The society itself became the solution to all is existential problems, his questions and his suffering. It is this ‘function’ of society that functionalists put so much emphasis on: and religion because it unifies. In aforementioned book, Durkheim presented his landmark theory: he argued that religion essentially was based on the fundamental distinction between the sacred and the profane, it was, he wrote, ‘a unifying system of beliefs and practices, related to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden’. He identified the most basic form of religion, which he called, ‘totemism’ where every symbol, object, ideology or thing, had been connoted with a meaning. That meaning rendered that particular thing sacred, and for individuals living in those societies (of Australian aborgines) they symbolized religion. That totem simultaneously became the god and society for the individuals, whereby in effect, the individuals were not worshipping God alone, but society itself. Durkheim also talked about the concept of ‘collective conscience’. This collective conscience comprised of what individuals in a society had in common and how those commonalities infused the society with social solidarity, social cohesion, social control and social order. Religion was not only a part of that collective conscience but also reinforced it because it was, after all, a unifying force. Besides Durkheim, it is the Bronislaw Malinowski’s research that added greatly to the Functionalism viewpoint of religion and society. Although the nature of his work had Durkheimian roots, a fundamental difference that arose was related to Malinowski’s adaptation of the role of religion. He did not see religion as an expression of a society’s collective conscience that inevitably infused social solidarity in the societal systems; instead he saw religion on an individualistic level where the individual made use of it during times of stress and emotional trouble. These situations threatened social solidarity, and religion, in times of crises, helped rebuild that social solidarity. He noted that in times of marriage, death, puberty or birth, social life was threatened and to overcome the threat to that social solidarity, a religious ritual was inevitably attached with a life crisis. This helped the individual, on a micro-level, to make use of religion as an overarching social institution and regain his entry into social life. For example, he noted that fishing was considered to be an important social ritual in the Trobriand Islands, and just like a funeral ceremony, it helped people get back with each other. Similarly, Talcott Parsons (1937, 1965) concurred with Malinowski and held that religions helped build value consensus in societies and helped people overcome problems of life. Religion acted as a safety-valve in society that made transitions easier, and adjustments to different situations smooth for an individual. Conflict theories, on the other hand, have an entirely different view point when it comes to religion. Unlike Functionalists who put a strong emphasis on social solidarity, collective conscience and the need to attain equilibrium, Conflict theorists such as Marxist and Feminists argue that religion in most societies acts as a disrupting force. It brings with it chaos, division and conflict in society. In Marx’s (1963) words, religion was the ‘sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of the heartless world and the soul of the soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people’. Similarly, in Lenin’s words, ‘religion is a kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claim to any decent life’. Marxists therefore argue that religion hides the oppression in society, and makes the oppressed blind to his own oppression – his exploitation is justified in religion, which is an ideological device in the hands of the ruling class employed to achieve that very objective. For example, religion offers hope and salvation in life after death, thereby making people justify their present social conditions in the context of predestination or fate. It makes the working class, the proletariat, mystify their present social and economic conditions by attempting to justify social order in religious terms as the one created and sustained by God. Marxists argue that this concept of God, and cloaking growing alienation in the proletariat as fate or destiny, helps the bourgeoise maintain their ideological and economic hegemony over the former. This makes the proletariat blind towards their exploitation and prevents a ‘revolution’ which if ever achieved would advance the former to ultimate freedom: a classless and religion-less society with economic equality. Interestingly, Marx argued that religion was not only used to justify the position of the proletariat, in fact, the ruling classes used that very religion to perpetuate their ideological hegemony and to justify their dominance over the proletariat. For example, in Medieval Europe kings and queens ruled by ‘divine right’, whereas the Egyptian Pharaohs combined the concept of god and king in one person. Moreover, in 18th century England religion was used to motivate the employees to work hard and work conscientiously. This helped the ruling class exert strict, but hidden, ideological social control over the masses. Feminism, like Marxism, views religion as a social institution that helps to manifest exploitation of women in society. It argues that religion is an instrument of domination and oppression. However, unlike Marxism, Feminism sees religion as a creation of patriarchy rather than capitalism: they see it as an institution created and justified by men to exert undue control over women’s lives. For example, Karen Armstrong (1993) argued that no religion has been good to women in particular and all of them, in some form or other, have aimed at exploiting women. For example, Simone De Beauvoir wrote in the Second Sex, ‘for the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians… man is master by divine right’ and that gives him the authority to exercise power and coercion in the lives of women. All feminists argue that religion aims to incorporate gender inequality in society. However, Nawal El Saadawi, Egyptian feminist writer, argued that religious oppression has been incorporated in society because men have deliberately misinterpreted religious tenets in their own favour, thus leaving women in a potentially exploitative position. Lastly, Interactionist perspective generally rejects all claims of a grand theory or an all-encompassing theory. It believes that “society” “institutions” or “government” are abstract objective formulations and only thing can be studied and evaluated is the interaction among people. Interactionist perspective does not have much to contribute to the religious doctrines because it emphasizes the individual and for it religion is only a system of symbols designed to reinforce certain values. Symbolic interactionism, headed by GH Mead and IH Cooley, therefore only focuses on the interaction of the individual and unlike all the theories discussed above, represents a viewpoint distinct and unique: it says that people interact through symbols and religions, language, society are all symbolic narratives that downplay the individual himself. Since this perspective is largely concerned with human behavior and personality development it is unlikely that it could be of any use in studying religion on a social level. As it is evident in the discussion of all theories above, every narrative has something concrete to add to how religion is viewed as a social institution. Post-Modernism, however, argues that religion has been revived as an important social institution. To escape the alienation and problems of the post-modern life individuals have increasingly sought to find solace in the overarching power of religion. Anthony Giddens, for example, argued that modern civilization entered a new phase in high modernity where individuals tend to exercise greater conscious thought process in carving out a place for themselves and making rational choices about who they are and how they want to be perceived. And this is done in order to fill the “moral vacuum” that modernity created in people’s lives. This moral vacuum is the feeling of increased alienation as importance of societies, traditions and beliefs is downplayed and the concept of choice steps in which leads to personal meaninglessness. This vacuum according to Giddens is filled by religion and increased spirituality in modern societies. Bibliography: Haralambos and Holborn, Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, , 6th Edition, Collins (2004) Horton and Hunt, Sociology, 6th Edition (Year Unknown) Religion in Sociological Perspective , Roberts and Yamane, 5TH Edition, Sage Publication (2012) Read More